Totally worked in the case of Thomas K. Applewhite.
So if you understand the intent, do you still think it’s grandstanding?
Are any of your statements correct or factual?
Of course. He knew very well that it was a pointless exercise. He could have made a valid point by calling on the media for discretion on what they said about the shooter, and to limit the publicity and attention given to him. But going all the way to “I won’t say his name” is extreme and obvious grandstanding.
Watch his news conference. He puts in dramatic pauses and calls attention to the fact that he’s not saying his name. If his intent really was to limit publicity for the shooter, why make such a big deal about how he’s not saying it?
Are you a good one to ask that?
I’m interested in what doorhinge things is incorrect or factually wrong. Some of the OP was facts, most of it was opinion. Are you complaining the facts are wrong (and if so, which ones) or are you cheesed because an opinion was expressed in the Pit?
There do seem to be a lot of serial corrections or updates to the OP’s claims. Just sayin’.
No, you’re sayin’ nothing. Actually say what you’re tryin’ to say so people can agree or argue with it.
Chefguy’s in the tiny top rank of my Doper list, but I think (all rage aside) he could have composed his rant a little more carefully, so that fewer posts would be wasted bolstering his claims. If that’s sayin’ nothin’, I got nothin’ else to be sayin’.
Eh, it had four insults, 3-5 profanities (depending on your definition), sarcasm, and I could picture the force of the keystrokes. Pretty decent Pit in my view. I’m honestly wondering what doorhinge found objectionable from a factual basis. I saw a couple possibilities but didn’t want to guess what got him (or you) going.
If you can’t exaggerate a little and throw opinions into a Pit rant, where can you?
For example, GQ version: no, the sheriff didn’t say exactly “I refuse to obey any gun laws that the administration might pass.” Pit version: can you imagine any possible gun law the administration might pass that the sheriff would not declare unconstitutional in his view?
Argue that you think the sheriff is correct in his stance, but it’s disingenuous to argue that he’d be fine with some gun laws the administration might pass.
You be talkin’.
“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” ― George Carlin
Strictly speaking, as he is not an agent of the federal government, he’s not under any obligation to enforce federal laws, right?
Strictly speaking, that is correct. All the places with legal weed are doing exactly the same thing.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but strictly speaking all Americans are under obligations to live by the federal and local laws of the land, no? Ask Kim Davis.
I’m an American and not a Washitonan, Californian, Arazonin, Idahoan or S Dakotan despite having resided in all of those States…
Being obligated to live by federal law isn’t the same as being obligated to enforce it. As E-Dub pointed out, lot’s of local law enforcement in places like Washington and Colorado are ignoring any federal law in regards to marijuana and not arresting people who produce and/or distribute the stuff. Back in the day, New York became one of the first states to throw up their hands and yell “Fuck it! You want to enforce it you enforce it!” in regards to Prohibition.
But they are doing so under tacit approval by the executive branch. If the federal government wanted, they could mandate enforcement. Instead, they’ve specifically said the opposite.
And yet to hear certain people tell it, local jurisdictions that have decided not to enforce federal immigration laws are treasonous anti-American scourges whose leaders should be sent to Guantanamo…
No, the Feds can’t force state/county/city officials to enforce federal law. That is what the FBI, DEA, Secret Service, etc are for.
Now, normally the various law enforcement groups work together, but there is no obligation to.
(post shortened)
Can you really picture the force of the strokes? That’s amazing.
Meanwhile, I’m honestly wondering, in your opinion, what doorhinge found objectionable, also. I asked a question because there had been several posts that seem to question or contradict the OP. In other words, I was seeking clarification of the OP. I have no idea what you think you read.