Displaying 1 - 10 of 1828 Forum Posts1 2 3 4 5 Next
  • Mar 02, 2017 10:59 AM
    Last: 5yr

    "really that dumb"?

    Hopefully not dumb enough to nominate two candidates as horrible as last time.

    Next time I just hope we have at least one decent person to vote for.

    As opposed to last election...

  • Feb 10, 2016 12:10 PM
    Last: 6yr

    The fix is in.

    Hillary is their chosen one.

    They won't ALLOW Bernie to get it.

    As lousy as she is, as much as she lies, as much a risk she is to national security...none of that matters.

    It's gonna be Hillary.


  • Apr 29, 2014 06:36 PM
    Last: 7yr
    The big winners will be the lawyers.

    All sides will have teams of the highest priced lawyers.

    Sterling is already very old, very rich, and has never been as famous as he is right now. What else does he have to live for? Nothing. He lives for this.
  • Dec 14, 2013 11:10 PM
    Last: 7yr
    jared I continue to agree with you that stop and frisk may be unconstituitional and you continue to argue against our agreement.

    I just know that it works.

    I also said that when I heard that crime is rising it does not mean anything at this point. You seem to argue against our agreement on that point also.

    Maybe I should consider using all caps. Maybe then you'd hear me...

    If you want to have more people shot and killed, not just a few, but thousands of people, rather than have a program that works, and saves lives, I'd say on that point you would be qualified to be mayor of Chicago. Yes it may be borderline legal, but to save thousands of lives maybe they should consider it.

    Even if they did try it, and it worked (they won't and it would) then you'd probably never acknowledge it anyway.

    "Fourth Amendment...is not violated."
  • Dec 14, 2013 11:10 PM
    Last: 7yr
    jared the ..."very important second part of the sentence"... pretty much says that the police officer can stop and frisk for just about anything that he/she suspects, or believes, or can even make up.

    The important part of the sentence is that part that says ..."Fourth Amendment...is not violated"...

    Here's some stats from the NYPD themselves.

    Police Department City of New York
    NYPD Compstat unit

    Year 1990 2013 % Increase/decrease
    Murder 2,262 -- 335 -85%
    Rape 3,126 -- 1,378 -56%
    Robbery 100,280 -- 19,128 -81%
    Felony Assault 44,122 -- 20,297 -54%
    Burglery 122,055 -- 17,429 -86%

    When Giuliani and Bratten inherited came into office, it was one of the unsafest big cities.

    At the end of 2013 when Bloomberg stepped down, it was one of the safest big cities. We shall see what happens with De Blasio as mayor, we know he has hired Bratten(!) so maybe he recognizes success when he sees it. Not that he's going to allow stop and frisk, at least not now. Like johnny mentioned in an earlier post, I have also heard that New Yorks crime is rising since the first of this year. Too early to get any permanent, long term trends like the permanent, long term trends listed above.

    Stop & frisk is the main factor in the success listed above.

    If you want to talk to me in all caps, go right ahead, it's just words on a screen. We are just having a discussion, that's all. It probably won't hurt my feelings a bit, and if it does, I'll get over it.

    Nice try, yourself.
  • Jul 08, 2014 02:02 PM
    Last: 6mo
    Indeed. Last week we were told that they were going to request 2 billion. This week it is nearly 4 billion.

    Next week????? Who knows?

    Another 2 billion? Or 5 billion?

    Solving problems ..."with money alone"... is EXACTLY how our government works. Or doesn't work, would be more accurate.

    Just look at public schools as just one example...all they want is more money every year and what are the results?

    A few billion here and a few billion there...the more money involved means more corruption, waste, fraud there will be.
  • Dec 14, 2013 11:10 PM
    Last: 7yr
    From Wikipedia: Terry v Ohio 1968

    "Terry v Ohio was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest..."
  • Dec 14, 2013 11:10 PM
    Last: 7yr
    jared it's not the first time we've disagreed, and that's OK, it would be boring to think exactly alike all the time. A little dissent is never a bad thing, it spurs critical thinking which leads to more understanding.

    I certainly did not talk up Bloomberg ..."then I surely don't know what is"... you said it, not me. I "talked up" Bloombergs program, not him.

    You insist that stop and frisk is unconstituitional, and I say that saving hundreds or thousands of lives over the years is worth the price of pushing that boundry.

    So you do not like the source of the article from NYT.com that I cited? You reject the story simply because you don't like the source? Like I always say, if you don't like the results of a poll or a news story, attack the source. It happens all the time and both sides do it.

    Not surprising at all.

    There are plenty of sources that tell how great and how effective "stop and frisk" was in New York, just like there are plenty of sources saying how terrible and unlawful it was. As with most large, controversial programs, the supporters and the detractors can both find plenty of sources to tell them what they want to believe.
  • Dec 14, 2013 11:10 PM
    Last: 7yr
    jared you got a couple of things wrong right off the bat: as for Bloomberg, I am not, not have I ever been ..."talking him up"... I don't care for the guy, never have, and I certainly did not say so. What I DO SAY about Bloomberg is that under Guiliani and Bloomberg crime went way, way down. He did lots of things I did not like, (the soda ban was as stupid as it gets) but he and his police commissioner kept New York one of the safest big cities in the world and stop and frisk was probably the single biggest factor.

    And I do not disagree that stop and frisk may be unconstituitional. It's debatable. What is NOT debatable is whether or not it works. It does work.

    The facts do not lie. Crime and murder went way down. Now that De Blassio is in, we will see what happens, it's too soon to tell.

    Here's what an article in NYT.com updated 7-22-13 said about stop and frisk: TO SEE IT'S VALUE, SEE HOW CRIME ROSE ELSEWHERE

    "New Yorks 80% drop in crime since the early 1990's is twice as deep and has lasted twice as long as the national average.
    Crime rate in Boston is 4107 per 100,000 residents.
    Crime rate in New York is 2257 per 100,000 residents."
    That's almost double in Boston...wonder why? (I know why)

    Crime rate was reduced by 80% in minority neighborhoods from the early 1990's thru 2013.

    The police stopped people where the crimes were being committed. That meant that the black and minority neighborhoods were targeted. Only because that's where the crimes were being reported.

    You may want to read up on it.
  • Jun 17, 2014 03:38 PM
    Last: 7yr
    5-0 Germany only 30 minutes in.

    This is a worse blowout than the Super Bowl!

    Let me know what the final is...I can't watch anymore.

    Does Brazil burn their city (or their country) like Detroit does after a bad loss?