ADVERTISEMENT

How Soon Before He’s Told “You’re Fired”

Well, any government agency should have its own lawyers and for areas of expertise outside of what they have in-house, access to legal firms that have the knowledge. I had to hire a lawyer out of Washington, D.C. one time find someone with the perfect expertise I needed, this was for a non-criminal matter. I shook all the trees of all of my professional and legal connections and got some good direction.

If I was the Sheriff or anyone else, good chance you have some good legal connections. If not, I start researching larger regional / local firms and seeing if they have the expertise I need. I have had really good luck with law firms making recommendations to me to other attorneys or practices that they know is really good in an area their firm may not be.

It might take some work, but you can find attorneys. If this was a national issue that was going to garner attention, you might have some big names willing to take it on. Doubt I would ever be in that situation. I have a hunch Dr. Baden did the autopsy for the Floyd family for free, no doubt he did it for all the right reasons and wanting justice, but some of your big attorneys will want true justice if they are passionate about the law and want the right outcome, they enjoy researching and arguing the law, and they like to be on the right side of an issue.
If I understand you correctly you’re saying leave our collective fate to the lawyers. Didn’t William Shakespeare have something to say about lawyers?
 
Thank you for your reply. It was thoughtful. But it didn’t answer the question. What do YOU think is a better characteristic of a leader? One with very thin skin who bridles at resistance from subordinates? Or one who listens thoughtfully to opinions offered by subordinates when their opinion runs counter to what his “gut” tells him?

Neither. The right message at the wrong time is still the wrong message. I preach that in my mentorship meetings all the time. I would have no interest in having the smartest guy in the world on my team if his answer to disagreement is to run to the press. I want people who will tell ME how they feel (not "yes" men) in the appropriate forums, and then in public or to the media supports whatever the corporate message is.
 
Nobody has answered my question. Would be very interested in your views
since I have been lectured on this board about the constitution and the Republic.
 
You say he should step aside and let the edict be enacted upon despite his objections. That does not seem reasonable to me. What’s that saying about what happens when good people do nothing?

Not certain any one individual on their own can stop people that collude to break the law, from breaking the law, especially if they have the power. They have not broken the law until they have, in what I suggested this gets stopped and or exposed, I do not believe my post suggests no consequences. Hopefully justice prevails if even after the fact and that happens peacefully and in the courtroom, even if it is after the fact. We are talking directives here, mostly directives that fall far short of telling someone to kill someone, or watching someone in front of you being murdered that is under custody. Some constitutional issues can be 50/50 and complicated. Anything you can do to help document the thinking and the decisions of those above you leading up to their decision to break the law, allows justice to be served, and make an example of someone and send a message don't do this stuff. Civilians will never be able to prevent all crimes, but they can stand up and do what is right, and if they resign or are fired try to have all the documentation you can, including if needed your own legal advice, to stand up to hold them accountable, even if it is after the fact. If I resign or I am fired as Sheriff and the orders to the next guy is immediately given and followed, I can not stop that. But I sure have what I need to expose it immediately and if needed criminal referrals.
 
Last edited:
If I understand you correctly you’re saying leave our collective fate to the lawyers. Didn’t William Shakespeare have something to say about lawyers?

Dick the Butcher wanted to kill all the lawyers so there would be no one to impede him taking over the throne and imposing himself as absolute ruler.
 
If I understand you correctly you’re saying leave our collective fate to the lawyers. Didn’t William Shakespeare have something to say about lawyers?

Not all lawyers are bad Ponca. I have had some great experiences with some lawyers, true professionals that love this country and our laws and are really good people and truly want justice and fair outcomes. IMO these are the best lawyers, there is a reason ambulance chasers are ambulance chasers. Divorce attorneys are blood suckers as well.

If you think as Sheriff I am going to really put my azz on the line and interpret the Constitution myself and all the legal opinions around the Constitution in a short period of time and make a really good informed decision, it is not happening. I neither want to lose my job because I am uneducated in the law and guessed wrong, and also to not look like a stupid clown show renegade individual.

Part of being educated and intelligent is twofold:

1. The ability to identify every bogey that hits the radar screen, it takes intelligence to have a very broad knowledge base to do that, usually takes both experience and education to get there.

2. Know which bogey's you can handle, and for the bogeys you can not, the intelligence to know that you can not handle them. Then you have to have the resourcefulness and been building your contacts over the years to know where to go to solve the problem, or to know someone who can send you in the right direction.

We live in a complicated world.
 
Not all lawyers are bad Ponca. I have had some great experiences with some lawyers, true professionals that love this country and our laws and are really good people and truly want justice and fair outcomes. IMO these are the best lawyers, there is a reason ambulance chasers are ambulance chasers. Divorce attorneys are blood suckers as well.

If you think as Sheriff I am going to really put my azz on the line and interpret the Constitution myself and all the legal opinions around the Constitution in a short period of time and make a really good informed decision, it is not happening. I neither want to lose my job because I am uneducated in the law and guessed wrong, and also to not look like a stupid clown show renegade individual.

Part of being educated and intelligent is twofold:

1. The ability to identify every bogey that hits the radar screen, it takes intelligence to have a very broad knowledge base to do that, usually takes experience and education to get there.
2. Know which bogey's you can handle, and for the bogeys you can not, the intelligence to know that you can not handle. Then you have to have the resourcefulness and been building your contacts over the years to know where to go to solve the problem, or to know someone who can send you in the right direction.

We live in a complicated world.

My bet is that Ponca isn't a big fan of Sheriffs either.

Just more tools of the state.
 
  • Like
Reactions: okcpokefan12
My bet is that Ponca isn't a big fan of Sheriffs either.

Just more tools of the state.

Could be...I know some like to assume all lawyers are bad and joke about it, but that is so far from the truth. I am personally very grateful and thankful for the assistance I have received over my career from very dedicated and hard working attorney's that really care about their clients and the law. Like any profession, bad apples exist.
 
Neither. The right message at the wrong time is still the wrong message. I preach that in my mentorship meetings all the time. I would have no interest in having the smartest guy in the world on my team if his answer to disagreement is to run to the press. I want people who will tell ME how they feel (not "yes" men) in the appropriate forums, and then in public or to the media supports whatever the corporate message is.
Very compelling case. Now apply it to the scenario I provided earlier. Esper resigns out of principal, Trump’s new man orders troops to be deployed, the troops overreact and fire into a crowd, followed by the Court saying Trump overstepped his legal authority. What’s the fallout? Sorry, mistakes were made, I shouldn’t have been so rash? Gee, on reflection I might not have done that had Esper stayed in and publicly contradicted me. It’s a pity, the Court said he was right and so was wrong but he resigned (it I fired him), so the guy that was right is gone and the guy who was wrong is still here. How does the president who followed your leadership advice handle a situation like that?
 
My bet is that Ponca isn't a big fan of Sheriffs either.

Just more tools of the state.
Philosophically speaking you are correct. But since I have to live in the real world not the wacky utopian version in my head I vote for laws and their enforcement to be as decentralized and local as possible. I tend to support sheriffs that take a stand and tell mayors or governors they’ve let their power go to their heads.
 
Very compelling case. Now apply it to the scenario I provided earlier. Esper resigns out of principal, Trump’s new man orders troops to be deployed, the troops overreact and fire into a crowd, followed by the Court saying Trump overstepped his legal authority. What’s the fallout? Sorry, mistakes were made, I shouldn’t have been so rash? Gee, on reflection I might not have done that had Esper stayed in and publicly contradicted me. It’s a pity, the Court said he was right and so was wrong but he resigned (it I fired him), so the guy that was right is gone and the guy who was wrong is still here. How does the president who followed your leadership advice handle a situation like that?

If what you suggest happens, Trump will not be re-elected and they can go after him. From what I know, plenty of President's have used military force in the US. Just one example: Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard I believe in 1957. Arkansas refused to integrate their public schools and actually used the Arky NG to not integrate. He then federalized the Arky NG and forced the schools to open for blacks. You think force would have been used if needed? Dang right it would have, and if the Arky NG had not followed orders, another Federal unit would have been called in.

I might be wrong, but I believe history shows the Prez has the right to use the military in the US during a national crisis. I think your hypothetical has a small likelihood of happening.

Answer us this, what do you suggest to be the right solution within our current laws? What is the perfect answer?

What would you do if you were Trump?

What would you do if you were that Sheriff, etc..
 
Not all lawyers are bad Ponca. I have had some great experiences with some lawyers, true professionals that love this country and our laws and are really good people and truly want justice and fair outcomes. IMO these are the best lawyers, there is a reason ambulance chasers are ambulance chasers. Divorce attorneys are blood suckers as well.

If you think as Sheriff I am going to really put my azz on the line and interpret the Constitution myself and all the legal opinions around the Constitution in a short period of time and make a really good informed decision, it is not happening. I neither want to lose my job because I am uneducated in the law and guessed wrong, and also to not look like a stupid clown show renegade individual.

Part of being educated and intelligent is twofold:

1. The ability to identify every bogey that hits the radar screen, it takes intelligence to have a very broad knowledge base to do that, usually takes both experience and education to get there.

2. Know which bogey's you can handle, and for the bogeys you can not, the intelligence to know that you can not handle them. Then you have to have the resourcefulness and been building your contacts over the years to know where to go to solve the problem, or to know someone who can send you in the right direction.

We live in a complicated world.
No, of course not all lawyers are bad. But the same can be said about police. Not all cops are bad, but there are enough bad police to cause upheaval and riots on a seemingly regular basis. Not all lawyers are bad, but there are bad lawyers, and it seems to me some of the most egregious of the bunch get attracted to the power granted to government. That’s my observation anyway. Perhaps your’s is different.

Sheriffs are elected by the people precisely to put their asses on the line. It’s a job requirement. Here’s two ways I can see it playing out. First, the sheriff can resign, be very vocal why he’s resigning, allow the mayor or governor to implement his unconstitutional decree, putting the public under an oppressive thumb until the next election. Or the sheriff can tell the mayor or governor to take a hike, he’s not enforcing an unconstitutional and oppressive edict from a power mad politician (who more often than not is a lawyer, by the way), and can run for re-election and hope the people see the wisdom of his action. I may be in the minority in this, I don’t know, but I choose door two every time.
 
Last edited:
No, of course not all lawyers are bad. But the same can be said about police. Not all cops are bad, but there are enough bad police to cause upheaval and riots on a seemingly regular basis. Not all lawyers are bad, but there are bad lawyers, and it seems to me some of the most egregious of the bunch get attracted to the power granted to government. That’s my observation anyway. Perhaps your’s is different.

Sheriffs are ejected by the people precisely to put their asses on the line. It’s a job requirement. Here’s two ways I can see it playing out. First, the sheriff can resign, be very vocal why he’s resigning, allow the mayor or governor to implement his unconstitutional decree, putting the public under an oppressive thumb until the next election. Or the sheriff can tell the mayor or governor to take a hike, he’s not enforcing an unconstitutional and oppressive edict from a power mad politician (who more often than not is a lawyer, by the way), and can run for re-election and hope the people see the wisdom of his action. I may be in the minority in this, I don’t know, but I choose door two every time.

So you assume a Sheriff can never be terminated in your world and hence decision making is easy and he can interpret the constitution however he sees fit? One guy. Only accountable to the voters? Sounds like an elected dictator with a badge and a guns What if the Sheriff is the constitution breaker? Wait years possibly for the next election? What if the public likes the constitution to be broken and vote him back in?
 
If what you suggest happens, Trump will not be re-elected and they can go after him. From what I know, plenty of President's have used military force in the US. Just one example: Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard I believe in 1957. Arkansas refused to integrate their public schools and actually used the Arky NG to not integrate. He then federalized the Arky NG and forced the schools to open for blacks. You think force would have been used if needed? Dang right it would have, and if the Arky NG had not followed orders, another Federal unit would have been called in.

I might be wrong, but I believe history shows the Prez has the right to use the military in the US during a national crisis. I think your hypothetical has a small likelihood of happening.

Answer us this, what do you suggest to be the right solution within our current laws? What is the perfect answer?

What would you do if you were Trump?

What would you do if you were that Sheriff, etc..
If I were Trump I would tell the mayors and governors it’s their mess they made and they can clean it up. People from Ponca City, OK, are not involved in how the Minneapolis PD is run.

I answered your sheriff question in my last reply.
 
So you assume a Sheriff can never be terminated in your world and hence decision making is easy and he can interpret the constitution however he sees fit? One guy. Only accountable to the voters? Sounds like an elected dictator with a badge and a guns What if the Sheriff is the constitution breaker? Wait years possibly for the next election? What if the public likes the constitution to be broken and vote him back in?
A sheriff can be terminated any time the public demands it. He can be voted out of office or recalled at the public’s leisure. If the sheriff is behaving unconstitutionally or in violation of the law it would fall on one or more of his deputies to detain him, just like they would do if they caught either one of us doing the same thing.
 
Dick the Butcher wanted to kill all the lawyers so there would be no one to impede him taking over the throne and imposing himself as absolute ruler.
I just saw this, and it gave me a good laugh. As if lawyers are the ones that would stop a rampaging butcher!
 
Very compelling case. Now apply it to the scenario I provided earlier. Esper resigns out of principal, Trump’s new man orders troops to be deployed, the troops overreact and fire into a crowd, followed by the Court saying Trump overstepped his legal authority. What’s the fallout? Sorry, mistakes were made, I shouldn’t have been so rash? Gee, on reflection I might not have done that had Esper stayed in and publicly contradicted me. It’s a pity, the Court said he was right and so was wrong but he resigned (it I fired him), so the guy that was right is gone and the guy who was wrong is still here. How does the president who followed your leadership advice handle a situation like that?

My company does a lot of things I don't agree with. I don't agree lockstep with ever decision my management makes. But I don't go run to the press (I could) or to others to argue it. I speak with the leadership and make my position known and then I follow orders. Esper may be correct in his perspective. And it could shake out exactly as you say. Or it could be the opposite. We choose to follow Esper's view and instead we get 4 more cops killed every night for the next week while we wait for someone else to rein in the violence. So let me ask you a question that's very relevant to your question above: Trump does have the authority to call in the military. That's in the insurrection act. I assume we aren't arguing that point. So the question becomes how much violence is allowed prior to Trump enacting it? Is 4 police officer deaths and another dozen or so wounded not enough? Does it take 10 dead policeofficers ? We have reported looting occurring in over 100 cities across 20 or 30 states, so its certainly beyond the jurisdiction of one state or police force. Do we wait for 200 cities to have riots? The fact is, the longer we go without there being consequences for the rioting, the more we embolden the rioters to continue to loot and pillage.

My personal position is that I don't want to see Trump call in the military. I'd rather see the governor's handle this through arrests and national guard support, but frankly, that's not been successful thus far, so I can understand why Trump would consider more draconian measures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner1
My company does a lot of things I don't agree with. I don't agree lockstep with ever decision my management makes. But I don't go run to the press (I could) or to others to argue it. I speak with the leadership and make my position known and then I follow orders. Esper may be correct in his perspective. And it could shake out exactly as you say. Or it could be the opposite. We choose to follow Esper's view and instead we get 4 more cops killed every night for the next week while we wait for someone else to rein in the violence. So let me ask you a question that's very relevant to your question above: Trump does have the authority to call in the military. That's in the insurrection act. I assume we aren't arguing that point. So the question becomes how much violence is allowed prior to Trump enacting it? Is 4 police officer deaths and another dozen or so wounded not enough? Does it take 10 dead policeofficers ? We have reported looting occurring in over 100 cities across 20 or 30 states, so its certainly beyond the jurisdiction of one state or police force. Do we wait for 200 cities to have riots? The fact is, the longer we go without there being consequences for the rioting, the more we embolden the rioters to continue to loot and pillage.

My personal position is that I don't want to see Trump call in the military. I'd rather see the governor's handle this through arrests and national guard support, but frankly, that's not been successful thus far, so I can understand why Trump would consider more draconian measures.


I know I’m in the distinct minority on this issue. But I don’t view this as a”national”
issue in the sense the US government should be involved, at least not in suppressing the riots. I suppose the case could be made that the FBI should investigate individuals or groups crossing state lines to participate in wanton destruction. But as for what happens on the streets of a particular city in a particular state, I think the US government should keep its nose out of it. Governmental
leadership should issue as many statements as possible calling for restraint by the rioters, and providing as much moral support to the local responders as they can muster. But IMO that’s where it should end.

There are conflicting views (aren’t there always conflicting views) about where the line is for the president to apply the insurrection act. I certainly don’t know where that line is. Actions such as that are of extreme relevance because they set precedents that cannot be reversed, only further strengthened. How are the Trump supporters calling for him to pull this trigger going to feel a few years from now when a president AOC pulls out the insurrection act to suppress a Tea Party protest she claims needs to be put down before it becomes violent?
 
OP asks a meaningless question.

A more substantive point. If local authorities won't take action against thugs burning and looting our cities, then the feds damn sure better do something about it.
I respectfully ask you to prove that thesis.
 
A sheriff can be terminated any time the public demands it. He can be voted out of office or recalled at the public’s leisure. If the sheriff is behaving unconstitutionally or in violation of the law it would fall on one or more of his deputies to detain him, just like they would do if they caught either one of us doing the same thing.

How many times has that happened?
 
Prove what thesis? When cities are being destroyed, it is best to take action rather than waiting for some fiddle fart cabinet secretary to find his dick. If that tootsie pop in a necktie gets fired, good riddance.
The thesis that it is the federal government’s responsibility to assume duties left to cities and states. When you advocate for such action you are joining ranks with the leftist of the left in demanding a strong central government. When you advocate for that, where has the line been moved to? Where do you say: feds do this for states or cities, but feds don’t do that for states or cities. And explain why the line belongs where you put it.

Just in case you are misunderstanding my intent here, I am asking you to give philosophical answers to philosophical questions. I am in no way saying I condone the riots.
 
Trump, like most CEOs, don't like subordinates coming out behind him and subverting or sabotaging him. It's OK to share your thoughts behind the scenes but when the decision is made to begin speaking publicly, then STFU or resign. When I had employees, I listened to their positions but once a decision was made I expected them to support it in public, keep their mouths shut or GTFO.

Same thing as when you’re a head coach, as I have been. When I’d meet with my assistants, they were free to be as critical as they wanted on policy and I’d listen and adjust as needed. Sometimes I’d take their advice, sometimes I wouldn’t. I had about 20 years experience on my side, so many times I needed to explain why I was doing what I was doing. But there were times that I made changes based on their feedback.

But the bottom line was this: once we get out if that coaches meeting we needed to be unified on what the strategy was. I didn’t need an assistant talking to players (or, even worse, parents) behind my back about what they thought needed to be done. There’s always going to be someone who’ll be there to agree with them, most often a disgruntled player or parent. A few years back, I had to let an assistant go because they thought they knew better than me on way too many occasions and then chirped about it to others publicly. That can’t happen.
 
The thesis that it is the federal government’s responsibility to assume duties left to cities and states. When you advocate for such action you are joining ranks with the leftist of the left in demanding a strong central government. When you advocate for that, where has the line been moved to? Where do you say: feds do this for states or cities, but feds don’t do that for states or cities. And explain why the line belongs where you put it.

Just in case you are misunderstanding my intent here, I am asking you to give philosophical answers to philosophical questions. I am in no way saying I condone the riots.
But you're leaving out the part where the state and local governments abandon their responsibilities. If my local authorities were just going to step aside and let my house burn, then I would definitely want the federal government to keep that from happening.
 
But you're leaving out the part where the state and local governments abandon their responsibilities. If my local authorities were just going to step aside and let my house burn, then I would definitely want the federal government to keep that from happening.
No, no, I am explicitly NOT leaving out that part! That is the crucial part that demands to be answered before power is handed over to a ruler even more distant than the one we have now. If our local ruler is blind to the situation what makes anyone think a bigger, more powerful ruler even further removed from our travails will act prudently? What prevents him from reacting with tyranny? We would have asked him to save us. His way of saving us might be the implementation of tyranny. Then what? Then to whom do we turn? Who’s left?
 
Oh, please, stop with the TDS bull. I’ve spent more time on this board defending Trump than attacking him. How many times do I have to say I think he’s about an average president, done both good and bad. I applaud and defend the good and criticize and ridicule the bad and horrendously stupid things he says.

I sincerely hope you are right and he does not deploy armed military personnel on the streets. The problem I have with Trump is he is such a bull in the china shop you can’t know when he’s going to snap. And I completely understand that’s one of the things that so endears him to you, it keeps your perceived political enemies on a constant state of alert. It also works to keep the country as divided as it can get short of civil war. And, yes, I know and agree the left/Democrats do it too, at least as badly as Trump. But eventually an adult needs to step up and paddle all their heinies. I suppose I am too naive to expect the leader of the free world to be that adult.

Putting a stop to rioting and looting is now seen as divisive? Are you serious Clark?
 
Same thing as when you’re a head coach, as I have been. When I’d meet with my assistants, they were free to be as critical as they wanted on policy and I’d listen and adjust as needed. Sometimes I’d take their advice, sometimes I wouldn’t. I had about 20 years experience on my side, so many times I needed to explain why I was doing what I was doing. But there were times that I made changes based on their feedback.

But the bottom line was this: once we get out if that coaches meeting we needed to be unified on what the strategy was. I didn’t need an assistant talking to players (or, even worse, parents) behind my back about what they thought needed to be done. There’s always going to be someone who’ll be there to agree with them, most often a disgruntled player or parent. A few years back, I had to let an assistant go because they thought they knew better than me on way too many occasions and then chirped about it to others publicly. That can’t happen.
I understand what you’re saying. And I agree with you under the criteria you are providing. Where I see a difference is in political decisions voluntarism is set aside. Government is the threat or actual application of brute force to any free thinking recalcitrant. Nobody is ruined when he publicly disagrees with the head coach. If the loud mouthed assistant is proven correct he might be sent to replace the pig headed head coach. That’s not how it works in government.
 
Putting a stop to rioting and looting is now seen as divisive? Are you serious Clark?
Hm. Did I say putting a stop to rioting and looting is divisive? I’m pretty sure I never said that or even implied it. The divisiveness of which I have spoken is the hateful and antagonistic rhetoric spewed by BOTH sides. It is childish, churlish language that is designed to keep us at war with each other, with not a hint of maturity. The maddening part for me is how easily it works. It has gotten to the point both sides literally hate each other. It makes OSU sports fans’ attitude toward people like Al Eshback (sp?) look downright amateurish.
 
I was always told on this board that America is a republic and the states have a right to govern themselves.
people defending the 2nd ammendment even talked about taking up their guns if the federal govt interfered in states internal matters. Therefore do then Americans fight the military deployed by the President.
Not all lawyers are bad Ponca. I have had some great experiences with some lawyers, true professionals that love this country and our laws and are really good people and truly want justice and fair outcomes. IMO these are the best lawyers, there is a reason ambulance chasers are ambulance chasers. Divorce attorneys are blood suckers as well.

If you think as Sheriff I am going to really put my azz on the line and interpret the Constitution myself and all the legal opinions around the Constitution in a short period of time and make a really good informed decision, it is not happening. I neither want to lose my job because I am uneducated in the law and guessed wrong, and also to not look like a stupid clown show renegade individual.

Part of being educated and intelligent is twofold:

1. The ability to identify every bogey that hits the radar screen, it takes intelligence to have a very broad knowledge base to do that, usually takes both experience and education to get there.

2. Know which bogey's you can handle, and for the bogeys you can not, the intelligence to know that you can not handle them. Then you have to have the resourcefulness and been building your contacts over the years to know where to go to solve the problem, or to know someone who can send you in the right direction.

We live in a complicated world.
Amen!

102433129_938881236534252_3034608468678934528_n.jpg
 
Same thing as when you’re a head coach, as I have been. When I’d meet with my assistants, they were free to be as critical as they wanted on policy and I’d listen and adjust as needed. Sometimes I’d take their advice, sometimes I wouldn’t. I had about 20 years experience on my side, so many times I needed to explain why I was doing what I was doing. But there were times that I made changes based on their feedback.

But the bottom line was this: once we get out if that coaches meeting we needed to be unified on what the strategy was. I didn’t need an assistant talking to players (or, even worse, parents) behind my back about what they thought needed to be done. There’s always going to be someone who’ll be there to agree with them, most often a disgruntled player or parent. A few years back, I had to let an assistant go because they thought they knew better than me on way too many occasions and then chirped about it to others publicly. That can’t happen.
Exactly.
 
I just saw this, and it gave me a good laugh. As if lawyers are the ones that would stop a rampaging butcher!

It is my goal in life to give you a good laugh in each any every one of your diminishing days on this planet.

And I didn't claim that Dick the Butcher was a smart man, but that was the context in which Shakespeare wrote it.
 
It is my goal in life to give you a good laugh in each any every one of your diminishing days on this planet.

And I didn't claim that Dick the Butcher was a smart man, but that was the context in which Shakespeare wrote it.
That’s quite a lofty goal! I only have a few diminishing days left, so it probably won’t be too hard to accomplish. And, yes, I got the context of the Butcher/Shakespeare comment, and it made me laugh.
 
Hm. Did I say putting a stop to rioting and looting is divisive? I’m pretty sure I never said that or even implied it. The divisiveness of which I have spoken is the hateful and antagonistic rhetoric spewed by BOTH sides. It is childish, churlish language that is designed to keep us at war with each other, with not a hint of maturity. The maddening part for me is how easily it works. It has gotten to the point both sides literally hate each other. It makes OSU sports fans’ attitude toward people like Al Eshback (sp?) look downright amateurish.

In other words you expect Trump to sit back allowing the Democrats and the MSM to distort everything he does without response. Sorry but until you start holding Democrats and the MSM to the same standard your view point is seen as extremely biased and overly one sided.
 
I know I’m in the distinct minority on this issue. But I don’t view this as a”national”
issue in the sense the US government should be involved, at least not in suppressing the riots. I suppose the case could be made that the FBI should investigate individuals or groups crossing state lines to participate in wanton destruction. But as for what happens on the streets of a particular city in a particular state, I think the US government should keep its nose out of it. Governmental
leadership should issue as many statements as possible calling for restraint by the rioters, and providing as much moral support to the local responders as they can muster. But IMO that’s where it should end.

There are conflicting views (aren’t there always conflicting views) about where the line is for the president to apply the insurrection act. I certainly don’t know where that line is. Actions such as that are of extreme relevance because they set precedents that cannot be reversed, only further strengthened. How are the Trump supporters calling for him to pull this trigger going to feel a few years from now when a president AOC pulls out the insurrection act to suppress a Tea Party protest she claims needs to be put down before it becomes violent?

Sorry Dan, but this reply sucks. So you think 140 riots over the same thing should be treated as 140 independent events. That's worked well so far.

Second, you again state that you don't know what you would do differently, yet your tds was sure that Trump's answer must be wrong.

Finally. You conflate AOC enacting the law to prevent violence from occurring. Given the deaths and destruction that have already occurred that is a false dichotomy. But if a bunch of white nationalist start burning, looting and pillaging them id support her, but not before then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: okcpokefan12
Sorry Dan, but this reply sucks. So you think 140 riots over the same thing should be treated as 140 independent events. That's worked well so far.

Second, you again state that you don't know what you would do differently, yet your tds was sure that Trump's answer must be wrong.

Finally. You conflate AOC enacting the law to prevent violence from occurring. Given the deaths and destruction that have already occurred that is a false dichotomy. But if a bunch of white nationalist start burning, looting and pillaging them id support her, but not before then.



Yes, I expect local riots to be contained by local law enforcement. I want to see riots in OKC be dealt with by OKC police, county sheriff departments and state troopers. That’s what we pay them for. What I don’t want to see is a contingent of marines flown in from Camp LeJune patrolling the streets in combat gear, having check points where I am instructed to produce my papers. So, yes, I suppose you could say I want 140 cities to police themselves regardless of the unifying theme for lawless behavior and wanton destruction.

I know it is because I am extremely cynical, but I can’t help but think part of the reason so many mayors and governors have responded so tepidly is because they hope to entice the feds to come in and crack some heads, getting the mayors and governors off the hook, allowing them to publicly chastise DJT for his brutality while privately being gleeful that they can’t be blamed. As I said earlier if it was me I’d tell them to clean up their own mess.

I’m not sure what your second point is. I don’t have tds, and my comments are based on what I fear he might do, which is based on what he said he would do. For the third time let me stress I want Trump to step aside and let the local people handle their problems locally.

And, yes, I intentionally used the AOC example, because sending in troops when they should not be sent, as is the situation today, will set a precedent for another president to weaken the restrictions on using the act next time they think it will be politically expedient. These things don’t happen in a vacuum. Each precedent takes away a little more social power and increases government power. It’s the theme of The Road to Serfdom, don’t you know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CowboyJD
Yes, I expect local riots to be contained by local law enforcement. I want to see riots in OKC be dealt with by OKC police, county sheriff departments and state troopers. That’s what we pay them for. What I don’t want to see is a contingent of marines flown in from Camp LeJune patrolling the streets in combat gear, having check points where I am instructed to produce my papers. So, yes, I suppose you could say I want 140 cities to police themselves regardless of the unifying theme for lawless behavior and wanton destruction.

I know it is because I am extremely cynical, but I can’t help but think part of the reason so many mayors and governors have responded so tepidly is because they hope to entice the feds to come in and crack some heads, getting the mayors and governors off the hook, allowing them to publicly chastise DJT for his brutality while privately being gleeful that they can’t be blamed. As I said earlier if it was me I’d tell them to clean up their own mess.

I’m not sure what your second point is. I don’t have tds, and my comments are based on what I fear he might do, which is based on what he said he would do. For the third time let me stress I want Trump to step aside and let the local people handle their problems locally.

And, yes, I intentionally used the AOC example, because sending in troops when they should not be sent, as is the situation today, will set a precedent for another president to weaken the restrictions on using the act next time they think it will be politically expedient. These things don’t happen in a vacuum. Each precedent takes away a little more social power and increases government power. It’s the theme of The Road to Serfdom, don’t you know.

I mostly agree with this post. As I clearly said, I don't want Trump to call in the army. I would prefer that the Governors and mayors had dealt with this up front. But how much death and destruction has to go unchecked before we're stating that Trump should have acted sooner? Is it 10 deaths? 20? $1B in property damage?

As for your AOC analogy, her use would not be in compliance with the law as its written. Trump's use today would be. That's a bigger difference than the inching of precedence.
 
In other words you expect Trump to sit back allowing the Democrats and the MSM to distort everything he does without response. Sorry but until you start holding Democrats and the MSM to the same standard your view point is seen as extremely biased and overly one sided.

I’m beginning to think we exist in alternate universes. Where in anything I have said do you come up with me saying Trump should “sit back allowing Democrats and The MSM to distort everything he does without response.”? I know I’ve never said anything of the sort because I don’t believe that for a second.

Maybe you were not on the board when I had daily debates with the leftists and Democrats on this board regarding Russia, Russia, Russia. As a committed non-violent philosophical anarchist I utterly despise their vision for our country, and have said so countless times.

I suspect you exist within a binary viewpoint: you either love Trump and are willing to take a bullet for him, or you are an enemy with tds and must be condemned. This may disappoint you, but I live outside that dynamic. I hate them all, including Trump. But my hatred for Trump is not because he’s Trump but because he wants to tell me what to do. It’s the same reason I hate the rest of the Republicans and all the Democrats.

When we have disagreements in the future - as I’m sure we will - I would ask that you remember this and not put me in the “leftist/Democrat/America-hater” category wiyh which you have found so convenient.
 
Last edited:
Once again we are inflicted with Al Sharpton and his ilk rail, from a pulpit (sep of church/state only applies to the right)
 
  • Like
Reactions: okcpokefan12
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT