3507

Now that we've had George W. Bush, the invasion into, and bombing of, Iraq, Guantanamo prisoners not charged for many years, abuses at Abu Ghraib, and later the candidacy and presidency of Donald Trump, and Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham flip-flopping on when it's okay to hold hearings on nominees to the Supreme Court, and many disrespectful behaviors and words from Donald Trump as president, and the J*** 6, 2021 invasion of the Capitol building, and we believe all these things happened; plus, a broad swath of the U.S. v****g public getting most of their news from "Fox News" which, when pressed, admits it's not news, it's entertainment; with all those things which I would not have believed would ever happen, now, _other_ things are being called not credible -- things like Greg Palast's reports of wrongful v**er purging.

WinkyTink Loc: Hill Country, TX

We need to banish the scourge of Republicans. Shut them up, get them outed for what they are. Eliminate anyone we don’t agree with!

Liberty Tree

As opposed to Democrats who have no credibility.

Hug

Yes, defund police and do away with police. Then we can play Cowboys and Democrats.

woodguru

All of the credible republicans are called RHINOs, they are being aggressively purged if they can't support lies and rhetorical fantasy

woodguru

You obviously don't have a clue what is meant by "defund the police". It is reallocating funds for handling social and mental health issues to take things police officers should not have to deal with off of their hands. They are arms of police departments. Then there is reducing or eliminating overtime that is nothing more than unions forcing cities to have to pay cops more in the guise of union mandated overtime. Cities would be far better off hiring more cops than working a smaller force more hours.

WinkyTink Loc: Hill Country, TX

Stoned early today ain’t ya Woodie?
Definitions are shifting along with support for the Marxist crap spewed by the left.

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

Sorry, Woody, but we know EXACTLY what "defund the police" means, and it is NOT what you are claiming. However, I do agree with your very last sentence, which is a lot higher average than normal.

Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

What's meant by "defund the police" is ever evolving. So far that places that have defunded the police, for the most part, have yet to "reallocate" as their cities fall into chaos. Only defund. Actions speak louder than words.

3507

I don't like the phrase "defund the police", and never did. I'm sure the basic idea behind it was "stop the terrible abuses that some police people are doing". The phrase "defund the police" is a very crude approximation of that; it is much too crude and literally has a different meaning from the longer phrase.

3507

And that's why we have to use more than just three words, and we have to choose them more carefully.

Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

And yet, defunding is what the liberal cities are doing. No one doubts that a very small number of bad cops abuse the power granted to them. A very very small number. In this day and age more police are abused than abusive. 366 police k**led in the line of duty in 2020. The cities are driving out large numbers of good police with their blanket statements, policies and cutbacks rather than seeking out the few bad police.

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

That is actually the typical tactic the left uses to address any problem. Blanket condemnation that affects everyone but the bad ones. I have had several bosses like that. If someone was c***ting the coffee fund, then the "solution" was to remove the coffee pot, rather than address it face to face with the c***ter. L*****ts address all problems that way.

WinkyTink Loc: Hill Country, TX

Astute observation. I've experienced the same behavior in the corporate world.... where the coffee drama solution was to forget the "fund" and just have the company pay for the dang coffee (liberal plan b).

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

I hear you! I was a manager, for a half dozen years, for a very nice lady who is very liberal. In one of her departments (not mine) two ladies, call them Abby and Beta, got into a severe yelling match. It did not quite come to blows, but it was close. My director asked me to come to her office. She was severely torn. She wanted to fire Abby over the incident, but did not want to fire Beta. She was literally wringing her hands, not knowing what to do, so she asked my advice. She felt that it would be 'unfair' to fire one and not the other, since both were involved. So I asked a few questions: How long has Abby been an employee? Seven years. Has she ever been involved in this kind of altercation before? Yes. She has received warnings. Who started it? Hard to tell for sure, but it looks like Abby did. Is Abby a good employee? She can be, but often isn't. How long has Beta been an employee? Less than a year. Excellent employee. This is the first time she has been involved in any negative incident. So my director followed my advice, fired Abby and gave Beta a formal warning. Beta went on to be an excellent employee, and eventually a department manager.
The solution was simple, and I'm sure very obvious to you. My point is, it was NOT obvious to my director, who was an intelligent, well educated and experienced woman in her fifties. But when confronted with a situation, she was so wrapped up in being 'fair' that she was blinded to a clear, simple, and morally correct solution. I have found this to be a massive blind spot in most liberal's eyes. But 'fairness' is very subjective, and is highly dependent on one's viewpoint. Fairness and justice have almost nothing in common.