The Seattle Times editorial board this morning, on our recent spate of tragic police shootings:
If there is a common denominator that links the shootings in Seattle, Lakewood and Eatonville, it is fools with firearms. The proximity of weapons to the angry, delusional and addled is astonishing.
Two of the shooters died in circumstances they brought on themselves, and another awaits a full, rigorous determination of legal accountability.
Application of the law, and all its protections and consequences, is separate and apart from assessing how the culture became awash in guns and embraced a mindless proclivity to use them.
A constitutional right to own a gun does not carry a subsequent right to put others at risk, or to amass a personal armory with a lethal capacity beyond some hypothetical need for household defense.
I dunno… sounds like an argument for gun control to me.
And while Republicans like to congratulate themselves as being the law and order party, this is one policy issue at least where dirty fucking hippie liberals like me are clearly on the side of the majority of law enforcement organizations. Ask any police officer whether he or she would like to see more (and more deadly) guns on street, and I think you know what answer you’ll likely get.
I herd in Yemen that there are 3 AK-47 for every person there, and that is why that Government finds it hard to govern. Are we headed in the same direction? At least they weren’t American supplied riffles, but God knows we like arming the World too, and at times they use those weapons against us. We are our own worst enemy. Let’s all go Rogue.
Could you imagine if there were (3)AK-47’s for every American and Illegal Immigrant. Wow, what fun we would have. The United States of Assholes.
I’m not sure that being on the side of the cops is exactly like being on the side of the angels.
I am not sure why David reads the ST… perhaps as material for his comedy act?
I gave up and now only read it when it talks about me (rarely) or when I find a free copy at the lunch counter.
As an academic I enjoy treating the editorial page to a writing for freshman sort of analysis. The ST editorials would be great material to teach freshman HOW to write. There are so many errors, run on sentences, misused conjunctions, pronouns with unclear references …. yada!
Goldy ought get paid to copy edit these incompetents.
Back at guns, I have never understood why we do not impose civil penalties on folks who irresponsibly allow their weapons to be misused? I was ion a gun shop the other day and the sales person was literally encouraging use of guns in a shoot out! Bad enough, but what if such an event occurred and (to minimize the horror) say my car was shot up .. instead of my wife? Isn;t the proponent of this sort of stuff as liable as say a cigarette company?
Here is a simple idea that does not require challenging the sacred bill of rights.
Initiative: To ensure the safe handling of guns in Washington, ALL guns must be registered and must show a proof of insurance against accidents.
Imagine that! How many thugs of the kind have been killing cops could convince Aetna to sell them insurance? A free enterprise solution to guns!
Yes, that’s exactly where we’re headed.
So, is the Times going to do the right thing and come out in favor of banning ammo sales over the internet and running instant background checks on ammo purchases?
re 5: Considering the rise of Blackwater, I’m still in favor of easy access to guns for American citizens.
How far do you think Iran’s ‘Revolutionary Guard’ would get if each Iranian had 3 AK-47’s?
Not very, is my guess.
I’m all for gun control, but also for changing public opinion on what it means to be a responsible gun owner. Not that such a thing would be easy, given the last two centuries and change of history and culture, but hey, a man’s gotta have goals, right?
In so many words, it’s not about the right, it’s the responsibility that comes with said right. Think samurai rather than Rambo, in my opinion.
The way I understand it Mike Huckabee let Maurice Clemmons out of prison early because he was part of the “well regulated militia” that is necessary to the free state of Arkansas.
I mean, why else would he have a firearm? Right?
Because if that’s not the case then the NRA is defending the rights of cop killers to posses firearms.
Why does the NRA and it’s members hate law enforcement?
7 hl
I don’t know, I imagine that many Iranians often support the Revolutionary Guard, particularly when their nation is being threatened by another country.
Why are we supposed to care what “law enforcement” wants? Yeah, I’m sure they’d love to ban guns for civilians. Then they’d feel completely secure while they went around tasering and shooting people.
My guess is that you would find a lot of Republicans who would support controlling the gun rights of American Muslims, Muslim immigrants, Mexican immigrants, and so on…
Yeah, what #8 said.
Do we also have a right to keep and bear bombs? A gun that “shoots” bombs?
@11 please crawl back under whatever rock you’ve crawled out from under.
re 10: http://www.cfr.org/publication/14324/
“Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) was founded in the aftermath of the 1979 Islamic Revolution to defend the regime against internal and external threats, but has since expanded far beyond its original mandate. Today the guard has evolved into a socio-military-political-economic force with influence reaching deep into Iran’s power structure.”
I’m not so sure Iranians still view the Revolutionary Guard the way they used to.
re 15: Sebastian’s comment is not entirely without merit. Cops have been known to brutalize and murder people.
I’ve never heard of them going to the funeral of someone they’ve deliberately or mistakenly killed and paying their respects.
All but one of the recent shooters was already legally prohibited from possessing ANY firearms. We see how well that worked. I see absolutely no need for any additional laws – enforcing the ones that are already on the books will go a long way toward keeping firearms out of the hands of people already prohibited from having them.
I would like to hear some comments about the Seattle police’ behavior in response to the WTO demonstrations. These are the same guys you uncritically laud today because some of them got shot.
Crazy citizens ahould not have weapons, but the rest of us should have reasonable access to them.
Give guns all the rights they are due under the Constitution. I just want a higher bar for gun owners.
@18 Seattle Mike
It seems to me that SOMEONE either irresponsibly allowed their gun to be taken or sold one irresponsibly. Why can’t someone sue that SOB?
The idea that ordinary citizens should have access to handguns in order to protect themselves from the authorities is laughable. Are YOU going to carry around a gun loaded and ready to shoot police officers you feel are violating someone’s rights? Do you think that a bunch of teabaggers with rifles are going to be able to take on the US military? It’s a foolish fantasy.
There’s really no logical reason to own a gun except the sport of hunting, or unless you’re a collector.
The constitution gives you the right to own them, but that doesn’t mean it’s a smart idea.
@19
There is no equivalency between the misdeeds of a few police at the WTO and the brutal murder of six officers by criminals.
Police have a higher bar of behaviour due to the responsibility of their jobs. We do not allow felons to become police because of that immense responsibility.
The majority of officers do an incredible job balancing the rights of citizens and the real dangers that tragically have claimed six of our finest.
It’s time to enforce the Constitution: Gun ownership by the citizen was meant to contribute to a “well regulated militia” not for any Tom, Dick, and Harry to own a gun will nilly.
“Orignial Intent” becareful what you ask for.
Memo To Editorial Board
“The proximity of weapons to the angry, delusional and addled is astonishing.”
No shit, sherlocks! Really — no shit.
@2 Don’t worry, we’re well on the way to becoming a third world country; and, if Republicans get their way, we’ll soon have a government like Somalia’s — i.e., none.
No taxes, no regulations, no government … just warlords in every township, and guns on every street corner. Just like Somalia.
@18 “I see absolutely no need for any additional laws – enforcing the ones that are already on the books will go a long way toward keeping firearms out of the hands of people already prohibited from having them.”
This has been the NRA’s tag line for decades. Meanwhile, the U.S. has by far the highest murder rate and gun violence of any country on the planet, except third-world shitholes mired in perpetual civil war. This approach obviously hasn’t worked, so it ought to be obvious to anyone with half a brain that it won’t work going forward, either. For half a century, the NRA has obstructed anything remotely resembling a rational gun policy in this country. Their position of no regulation of guns, period, guarantees continuing access to guns by the criminal, the deluded, the angry, and the insane.
Let’s arm every individual in every Country to the hilt, even the Vatican, so we can spread Democracy the right way.
@27
Enforcing current laws to their fullest would go a long way to fixing problems and is generally opposed by the NRA when someone tries to do it.
You need a guns and AMMO to shoot someone. Let’s put stricter laws on the sale of ammo. No more internet sales of ammo and an instant background check on all ammo sales.
SJ #4 –
I never heard that idea before — insurance required for every gun owned. Why not insurance for guns as for cars? One is just as deadly as the other. Makes sense to me.
(INSERT STANDARD GUN DEBATE HERE)
FUN! As an out gay liberal atheist…I’ll confuse the conservatives by supporting gun rights (in general). I love not being a stereotype. :)
Guns aren’t magical. Guns don’t shoot people. People shoot people with guns. Guns are dangerous. They’re supposed to be. So are cars, Tylenol, vodka, chainsaws, black powder explosive, meat cleavers, dogs, scissors, rat poison, etc. If a child gets their hands on rat poison or a running chainsaw the results will be horrible. And the parents are to blame. Guns and chainsaws are no different, extraordinarily dangerous tools, and in the hands of someone who means harm or is psychotic, very bad.
Guns ONLY physical non-magical attribute that makes them in any way unique, is that they’re very good at offensive multiple target damage (similar to a car hitting a crowd of people, or explosives).
Let’s just not make guns magical, they’re just tools that are very dangerous and SHOULD be kept out of the hands of the violent and psychotic elements of our society. But just like we don’t ban cars, chainsaws, and rat poison from the general population, we don’t need to ban all guns.
Yes if you banned guns and the violent criminals had to use chainsaws, knives, poison and explosives, there would be less death perhaps. Maybe. But we’d also save 50,000 lives EVERY SINGLE year by dropping the speed limit on highways to 35mph, making nearly all collisions survivable. The old “if it only saves one life it’s worth it” arguments fails us here. We SACRIFICE 50,000 lives every year (9/11 was only 3,000) because it helps our economy and we are impatient. There’s often other considerations (individual freedom and responsibility) that might trump the “if it only saves one life” argument with guns, just like with the speed limit.
I believe I have the ‘right’ (Constitutionally) to my guns. I do also believe the state CAN restrict guns from people with violent backgrounds, restraining orders, rapists, etc.
@31 – maybe because the reality is that we all are capable of doing harm, maybe some need a little more shove than others, but maybe that is a good reason why not to have guns. Ultimately we all kill each other…why stop with guns, let’s all arm ourselves with nuclear warheads and have some real fun.
@31
Right on!
I tend to confuse people as I’m a tree hugging lefty that loves to eat meat and generally supports gun rights and often sticks up for hunters.
We need to change the way American’s look at firearms. We need to stop letting the polar ends of how we view guns lead the conversation on firearms.
Goldy, quit being such a schmuck. This blog runs post after post after post after post calling for the repeal of drug prohibition, but somehow you don’t see the disconnect between advocating AGAINST one ineffective, unworkable, unenforceable body of law while advocating FOR another.
Gun control is unenforceable, always has been, and always will be. Personal self-defense is a basic civil right, period. The very fact that both steely-eyed right-wing authoritarians and touchie-feelie nanny-state “progressives” fear and loathe and want to deny that right makes it one well worth preserving.
@34: Gun control is unenforceable….umm, have you looked at Europe? Wow, you are stupid.
I know facts are a hard thing to understand – but you have absolutely NO facts Ivan.
.
http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html
Goldy said:
“Ask any police officer whether he or she would like to see more (and more deadly) guns on street, and I think you know what answer you’ll likely get.”
Sure, if I were a cop, I’d like to be the only one with a gun. Why not? I could pretty much do whatever I wanted to do without getting a lot of backtalk from the local yokels.
@ 35, @ 36:
We are not Europe. What is enforceable there is not enforceable here. The Founders MEANT for the populace to be armed, which is why they wrote the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment, whether YOU like it or not, is part of our Bill of Rights.
And before you go there, “well regulated militia” did not mean “militia hamstrung by bureaucratic constraints.” “Well regulated” meant “smoothly functioning,” and “militia” meant everybody not in the standing army.
I don’t dispute that the U.S. has a high number of gun deaths. I dispute the notion that there is a legislative remedy for that. I don’t think there is.
I think the solution lies in better gun safety education, in moral suasion, such as for drunk driving and public smoking, and in better law enforcement. I support all of that.
re 22: “Do you think that a bunch of teabaggers with rifles are going to be able to take on the US military? It’s a foolish fantasy.”
They apparently can do it in Iraq and Afghanistan — and they are just a bunch of illiterates.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, not the hopeless ‘scratch my tummy, i’m harmless’ image you seem to prefer.
That being said, it would be foolish to run around with a gun targeting yourself as a gun nut. But that constitution that you cherish was bought in blood with the kind of citizen soldiers that you deride today.
Hey, I can use bullshit statistics as well as anyone. As the number of firearms has gone up the violent crime rate has gone down nationally. They mean nothing together but are both happening. That is the same kind of crap the anti gun crowd uses to support their position. Driving a car presents a danger. We have yet to get rid of them and make everybody take mass transit.
That asshole that killed the latest cop had paperwork in front of a judge saying he was a violent creep and owned firearms. One swipe of a pen and those guns must be surrendered. Ask anyone that has gone through an ugly divorce. Why he was allowed to keep his firearms is beyond me.
Yeah, imagine all the back talk the Lakewood cops were getting at that coffee shop getting ready for their shift when the Mike Huckabee parolee ended their lives.
Good call, assHOLE.
I find that I agree with the conservatives on this one. Just think back to Katrina. It was Blackwater that they authorized to patrol the area and bump off whoever thry wished to.
Read It Can’t Happen Here. I think it was by Sinclair Lewis and it addresses the problem of porential Little Hitlers in our midst.
Goldy said:
“Ask any police officer whether he or she would like to see more (and more deadly) guns on street, and I think you know what answer you’ll likely get.”
I’ll bet they’d like to not have to get warrants too. I’m sure they can be trusted, right Goldy?
Gun Owners are a bunch of paranoid people….if you get paranoid, just go out an buy a gun, sit and wait until that day you get to use it, yeah.
I think they say 50% of suicides are committed with a gun, some but not all from personal ownership, but I suppose if you had to pass a mental stability test to own the gun legally, the test must be failing some. And we all get to live with those nut jobs.
GBS said:
“Yeah, imagine all the back talk the Lakewood cops were getting at that coffee shop getting ready for their shift when the Mike Huckabee parolee ended their lives.”
You should have worded it this way:
Yeah, imagine all the back talk the Lakewood cops were getting at that coffee shop getting ready for their shift when the Mike Huckabee parolee and Pierce County judges ended their lives.
Have a nice night, assHOLE.
More guns = less crime.
PI @ 44
“when the Mike Huckabee parolee and Pierce County judges ended their lives”
Let’s see if I understand you. Huckabee is to be condemned for exercising discretion that was legally his in an irresponsible manner, and the Pierce County judges are to be condemned for failing to exercise a level of discretion that is not theirs to begin with?
PI barfed:
Where the fuck is all this “personal accountability” you dicksucks like to espouse???
If Mike Huckabee doesn’t parol the COP KILLER 4 families get to have Christmas with their husband, wives, mothers, fathers!!
What is it about accountability on Huckabee’s part in the first place that you don’t understand???
Grow a dick before you spout off, pussy!
Needle dick PI said:
Who wants to meet me in person??
I can arrange to have Politically Incorrect meet one of my friends in Law Enforcement at the Lakewood police dept HQ.
We’ll whip out a copy of his words on this blog and then he can SAY his words OUT LOUD to my cop friend and the rest of the men and women in blue.
Let’s see if you GOT A DICK you cock sucking piece of shit.
Let’s see how much they appreicate your Pierce County judge comment.
Care to take me up on this and show how tough you are, you jack off!!
EVERYONE on HA is invited to attend if PI is ready to back up his shit talk to the men and women who had to witness the crime scene and bury their own.
I’m ready. You ready, Dog SHIT??
PI’s back peddeling here ought to be reaaaaal good.
The 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting.
The 2nd Amendment is NOT about protecting ones’ home.
The 2nd Amendment is NOT about gun collectors wanting to own Jesse James’ handgun or the latest goofy looking assault weapon.
The 2nd Amendment IS about the fundamental right to collectively arm to defend State government perogatives against Federal government encroachments.
There is an amendment process for altering or removing the unabridged rigth to have and bear arms, but failing that the right is absolute. And before Rabbit goes off on some rant, I could care less about the tortuous justifications for not upholding this right ever in the history of the Supreme Court. They don’t have to like the amendment. They have every right lawfully to change it, and none to ignore it as they have.
And here’s why it matters to you anti gun types. If the clear and unambiguous wording of the 2nd Amendment isn’t to be respected how do you suppose the less clearly stated rights will fare?
Hm… Nobody’s talking about Orly Taitz’ call for us to exercise “our second amendment right to bare [sic] arms.” Apparently birfers are also jealous of Michelle Obama’s guns.
“Application of the law, and all its protections and consequences, is separate and apart from assessing how the culture became awash in guns and embraced a mindless proclivity to use them.”
Who defines this hyperbolic statement? Awash in guns? I’m not a gun owner, but all of those who own one that I know store and fire them responsibly and safely. A mindless proclivity to use them? Most owners I know use their weapons at most 6 times a year.
“A constitutional right to own a gun does not carry a subsequent right to put others at risk”
Purest applesauce. No-one has a right to put others at risk. For instance, if I fire a rifle in the air in a crowded neigborhood the police can and likely will take corrective action. I stand in jeopardy of being charged with a crime for placing others at risk. No one has ever asserted the ‘right’ this reactionary uses as a straw man to hide his essential lack of cogent argument.
“-or to amass a personal armory with a lethal capacity beyond some hypothetical need for household defense.”
Until and unless the 2nd Amendment is itself amended this is exactly the right I DO have.
Lost @ 52
Who defines this hyperbolic statement? Awash in guns? I’m not a gun owner, but all of those who own one that I know store and fire them responsibly and safely. A mindless proclivity to use them? Most owners I know use their weapons at most 6 times a year.
I gotta ask, does it ever occur to you that your experience just might not be representative of society as a whole?
Yes, especially living on the blue side of the state. Having said that, I would put that experience up against the lunatic statement I quoted any day of the week.
I gotta ask, does it ever occur to the far left (your president, Reid, Pelosi, et al) that they might not represent the wishes needs and experiences of society as a whole?
@ 54
Having said that, I would put that experience up against the lunatic statement I quoted any day of the week.
Fascinating. The statement has gone from “hyperbolic” to “lunatic” in two short comments. Frankly, I think you’re given to using words you don’t fully understand.
I gotta ask, does it ever occur to the far left (your president, Reid, Pelosi, et al) that they might not represent the wishes needs and experiences of society as a whole?
First, you might want to ask someone whose views fall on the “far left” spectrum, or do you consider anyone to the left of Attila the Hun to be “far left”? (BTW, that’s a hyperbolic statement.)
Second, it occurs to me on a daily basis that all of our elected representatives might well be enacting laws that don’t represent our collective best interests. That’s generally why I prefer to get into policy debates about the issues, and why I tend to not let my rhetorical opponents get away with blanket assertions of fact without asking them to provide some substantive argument and/or evidence to back those statements up.
Speaking of which, I still haven’t seen your list of Reagan policies that were, as you claimed, “good for business.” How much longer must I wait?
@52 lost
I agree with you reading of the second amendment and with dangers of mucking with the Bill of Roghts.
However, no one seem to be bothered by the restrictions on the BOR coming out of 911. We now REQUIRE warrantless searches, deprive folks of their right to bear arms, and restrict free speech.
The argument for looking the other way is also made by those who want to have two constitutions, one that applies to US citizens and a different one for non citizens as in undocumented aliens or the jockey shorts bomber.
It seems therefore, that within the second amendment, we could do a hell of a lot more to control the irresponsible use of guns. As a start:
a. universal registration WITH a requirement that a gun owner carry insurance.
b. penalties for the owner whever a registered gun is misused by another party.
So?
Re 56
As far as no one being bothered by the wholesale taking of basic civil liberties following 911 that truly alarms me. I don’t undertand why the Patriot Act and
the tyrannical theft of lbasic liberty in to travel haven’t been loudly and universally condemned, challenged in court, and reversed.
Insofar as the 2nd Amendment is concerned I don’t argue for or against restrictions on gun ownership per se. I do believe that any such restrictions have to be preceded by an Amendment to the Constitution allowing them. Doing anything else puts every other basic right (not already taken by the Bush or Obama administrations) at risk. It opens a door that will be much less easily closed, if it can be at all without revolution. Frankly I fear for the very real possibility of the 1984 type world my kids seem destined to inherit.
I believe it was Benjamin Cordozo who wrote that we have a fundamental right to be left alone by our government.
GBS seems have much anger and homosexual feelings…..perhaps he and gman should hook up for a night of mutual messiness…….
Seattletimes editorial board:
Yes, and that’s an eerily similar decription of the commenters here at HA that post here daily- i.e. Liberals aka “regressives”.
That said, I prefer abiding by the constitituon than a knee-jerk liberal hysterical “the sky is falling” reaction. Afterall, these act happened in a deep blue state, run by deep blue politicians and carried out by offenders whom see law enforcement as not only the enemy, but the mortal enemy- and as you can see by the comments above, shared by many of the HA hopeless, yet faithful.
Maybe Goldy is getting soft in his old age, if not wiser.
@34: Poor Ivan: Here is what you wrote:
Wrong – they enforce gun control in Europe and it works.
The second amendment was written in the time of muskets – it surely was not anticipated then that we would have semi-automatic weapons and Uzi machine guns.
I think we should let people have all the muskets and flintlocks they want – just nothing else since then…if you want to get literal. Range was about 100 feet and it took about 2-3 minutes to reload.
And Ivan: Well-regulated militia means just that….don’t you understand plain English?
What crap!
Sorry dumbfuck, but PI is correct. The Pierce county judges killed those cops sure as your dumbass is standing there with your single digit IQ. While I disagree with Huckabee paroling Clemmons (herein called Liberal piece of shit or LPS for short) in 2000, the Pierce county judges set a ridiculously low bail for a career criminal that was about to await trial on child rape and assaulting a police officer. That’s just plain fucking ignorant, but commonplace amongst the liberal judge mindset in this state and others.
In closing, the DIRECT blame for the 4 officers of LPD can be directly attributable to the LPS (see above if confused) and the fucking dumbass liberal judges that set his low assessment of bail. If not for their poor judgment in assigning bail, a whole lot of pain could have been avoided. Instead, some ignorant souls want to reach back 10 years to assign blame. And while there is not SOME validity to that argument, the Pierce county liberal judges put the bullet in the chamber and helped pull the trigger.
Them’s the facts GBS, you fucking dolt.
@59: Dear little empty headed Ricky D-mb-ss:
Wow, you are not only stupid you also make no sense.
The shooter was from Arkansas where he was let go by the republican govn’r. Deep blue….not so much.
And this gem:
Whom see? What third grade level class did you flunk out of? Thanks for giving me a good laugh at the expense of another moronic republican troll. Your combined IQ is well under 50….
That is not a typo – it is a person who cannot use simple English in a sentence and can’t even follow the basic rules of grammar.
@61: Have you ever heard of something called sentencing guidelines for Judges? It’s the law.
Wow, you amaze me with your stupidity.
@ 63
Actually, in this case, we’re talking about bail guidelines, but, in the larger sense, you are correct. If judges started imposing bail out of line with the actual charges in the cases before them, Ricky D would be pissing and moaning about “activist judges.” Don’t expect these twits to be coherent.
Re 60
Drawing a logical line through your thinking-
The 1st Amendment was written before electronic communication so only newspapers are covered by it.
The 3rd Amendment was written prior to the time that the US kept a peacetime standing army. Therefore 3 or 4 young men or women will be staying with you for a while…
The 4th…oh never mind, Bush and Congress slaughtered this one and it doesn’t really exist anymore.
The fifth seems to have survived largely intact. Amazing.
The 6th Amendment didn’t foresee the rampant increase in consentual crime and the overwhelming pressure this puts on courts and should be discarded.
The 7th- $20? Really?
The 8th also has stayed largely intact because we have the right to counsel in criminal trials.
…carried out by offenders whom see law enforcement as not only the enemy, but the mortal enemy.
That’s correct grammar dumbass. I forgot to add a comma after offenders, but once the offenders are identified as the subject, then whom is the correct term to use.
But somehow, I’m not surprised you’re so illiterate as to think otherwise and try to throw it back at me.
Thanks for the laugh dumbass.Perhaps some of your more educated liberal mates here can enlighten you to your ignorance.
the fact is that both parties want to curtail constitutional amendments and our rights – they just go after different ones.
@ 66
“That’s correct grammar dumbass.”
Actually, no. It’s not. In the sentence you quoted, “offenders” is the subject of the sentence (as you state), which means that “who” is the correct way to refer to them. You use “whom” when you’re referring to the object of the verb.
One might say, “carried out by offenders, to whom law enforcement…,” but not “carried out by offenders whom see”
Oh, and to be truly pedantic one should probably write “to whom law enforcement are the enemy..,” because the sentence refers to the group of agencies jointly not as a single entity.
My comment remains unchanged. Thanks to Don Joe for the clarification.
So I made one grammatical error that doesn’t significantly alter the comment, nor the reality. It just frosts ‘incorrectnotright’ that everything I posted was the truth. There is blame to go around everywhere on the LPD’s shootings, but to give a career criminal like Clemmon’s such a low bail (yes, lower than guidelines set) when facing child rape and assault on a police officer charges, that is just plain ignorance and irresonsibility on the part of the judges. Quit assigning blame to Huckabee for a bad judgment call 10 years ago, while giving a pass to an incompetent judge in Pierce county that gave the killer the freedom to commit the crimes.
whats next? the spell check police?
@ 69
Thanks to Don Joe for the clarification.
You’re welcome. (And, to think, there are some folks over in the “Rallying” thread who don’t think I’ve made any valuable contributions here.)
It just frosts ‘incorrectnotright’ that everything I posted was the truth.
Hold on there, squirt. You haven’t made your case. In order to make your case, you have to show that Clemmons would not have been able to make bail had the judges collectively set bail at the maximum guidelines for the charges he was facing. Only then can you even lay part of the blame at Pierce County judges.
Contrast that with the fact that Arkansas rescinded a warrant on a parole violation. Had Arkansas not rescinded on that parole violation, the Clemmons could have been held without bail.
Seems to me that, unless you’re inclined to treat Pierce County judges as your favorite scapegoats, you have to conclude that the blame rests far more on shoulders in Arkansas than it does on anyone’s shoulders in Washington.
Indeed, it’s worth asking why Arkansas might choose to rescind the warrant for Clemmons’ parole violation. Might it not have been due to various budget cuts for their criminal justice system? And, is it not so very Republican to expect states to incarcerate more and more prisoners on an ever-decreasing budget?
Oops. There you go being unoriginal, Don Joe. I think Darryl has the patent here on HA with the term “squirt”. If you want to be an original contributor, it’d be nice to start with some original content.
Um.No. Anyone with a lick of common sense understands that the breakdown was mutual between AR and WA, but WA had everything available to them to assign a higher bail. They had the additional 10 years of crimes committed after Clemmon’s release in 2000. That is simply an ignorant stance to take on the subject.
Unfortunately, we don’t know the timeline for this or whether WA authoritites contacted the AR authorities for their opinion on Clemmon’s. The WA state judicial system failed miserably and at the worst time possible.
I take into consideration who had more information on the last 10 years of Clemmon’s life. The AR authorities or the WA authorities that knew or at least had access to his past criminal history and his current charges of child rape and assulting a police officer. The WA criminal justice system failed not only Washingtonians, but the entire police department’s in this state by their actions.
Perhaps they (the AR authorities) had concluded, much as liberals like yourself tend to believe, that Clemmon’s had matured and turned his life around in WA. If he hadn’t have done this atrocious act, yourself and other’s on this blog would be his biggest supporters saying “hey, he was young when he did those acts; he’s got his own business now so just leave him alone and drop those old charges”.
Funny how all that false reality comes crashing down when he resorts being the punk he was in Arkansas, right here in Washington. Only it was alot easier for Pierce county judges to assess the situation than the authorities back in Arkansas. Therefore, the blood is on the hands of those judges much more so than either Huckabee or the AR authorities as they had the most information available to them and failed to act intelligently in assigning bail. That’s just the facts as they are, not how I want them to be.
@ 60:
Gun control is not enforceable here. This is not Europe. Keep trying. Keep failing.
I have a right to bear arms, therefore, you can’t pass a law preventing me from having nuclear arms or stockpiles of weapons!
I have a right to free speech, so you can’t sue me for defamation!
I have the right to liberty, so you can’t have the government tell me I have to pay for that kid I created!
I have the right to religion, so if my religion says I can deprive my kid of health care, and he dies, tought shit, you can’t regulate me!
The right to be secure in the home from search is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT buddy, so that means, YOU CAN NEVER ENTER MY HOME!
I have a right to confront witnesses against me, so there is no dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule! If I shoot a cop and on dying he says it was me, my individual right to confront witnesses means you can’t have hearsay testimony about that!
I have right to freedom of contract. Therefore you can’t have a minimum wage law!
I have the right to my property. You can’t pass a law making me hook up to the sewer system! It’s an individual right to my own individual private property, see?
In fact, since I have an individual right to bear arms, where do you get off saying I can’t have arms if I am mentally diseased! The second amendment doesn’t have an exception for that! It is my INDIVIDUAL RIGHT!
Same with my cache of weapons. A cache will be better to deal with a nazi government if we have one, so you can’t pass a law preventing me from having 20 guns!
“The 2nd Amendment IS about the fundamental right to collectively arm to defend State government perogatives against Federal government encroachments.”
That’s right, that’s why ANY law preventing us from having NUCLEAR WEAPONS or stockpiles of tanks, anthrax or machine guns in my garage would be illegal per se. Because obviously a huge amount of weapons fulfills the purpose of defending us against a federal government that is encroaching on our rights!
And look to what the Founders thought about excess government power. when some folks wanted to amend the articles of confederation, the founding fathers made sure that we simply amended the articles of confederation and didn’t create any big federal government!
Then, in that time the folks were taxed for whiskey and the folks rebelled ….G. Washington led his troops to support the people against the agents of the national government!
lostinaseaofblue is right, and you dumbass liberals don’t know any history!
…and on this point, Don Joe. This is a false statement. I’ll let this KUOW piece to explain it, but it appears that the Arkansas authorities reissued that warrant…
So, again, it appears that WA state dropped the ball on this tragedy. If you read the article, you’ll notice how many other failures were committed by the WDOC. Excuses are like assholes. Everyone has one and they all stink. The Governor and the head of the DOC in WA state prove this is true.
@ 72
I think Darryl has the patent here on HA with the term “squirt”.
First of all, it wouldn’t be a “patent.” It would be a copyright. Secondly, I’ve been using “squirt” in the same way since my college days posting on USENET more than (mumble mumble) years ago. It’s a rather common usage back in Wisconsin.
Anyone with a lick of common sense understands that the breakdown was mutual between AR and WA, but WA had everything available to them to assign a higher bail.
I’ve often said that “common sense” is an oxymoron, and I thank you for doing a bang up job of providing even more evidence to support that idea.
As I pointed out, Pierce County might well have assigned a higher bail, but that fact alone is insufficient to prove that, had highest possible bail been assigned, Clemmons would not have made bail. Your syllogism is missing a step. Repeating the flawed syllogism with nothing more than added vehemence and vitriol doesn’t repair the flaw.
Start by looking up the exact charges that Clemmons faced, and then find Washington State bail guidelines. Do your homework, lad, and stop pissing and moaning at me for refusing to be bowled over by the lack of substance to your argument.
Unfortunately, we don’t know the timeline for this or whether WA authoritites contacted the AR authorities for their opinion on Clemmon’s.
Who’s “we”? From the Seattle Times:
The rest of your diatribe assumes facts no in evidence–indeed assumes facts that are contradicted by the record. Please try harder to ground your argument in reality.
Lastly:
Perhaps they (the AR authorities) had concluded, much as liberals like yourself tend to believe, that Clemmon’s had matured and turned his life around in WA.
I am always amused when people like you presume to tell me what I do and do not believe to be true. But, then, why should you bother to actually understand what I really believe to be true when it’s so much easier to argue against the fantasy of your own making?
Stuff like this, Ricky, is what gets you labelled as a “dumbass.” Any idiot can slay straw creatures.
@ 76
…and on this point, Don Joe. This is a false statement. I’ll let this KUOW piece to explain it, but it appears that the Arkansas authorities reissued that warrant…
Not so fast, squirt. From the Seattle Times:
Despite the Seattle Times’ headline, nothing in the either the Seattle Times article or the KUOW piece you cited states whether or not the October warrant was a “no-bail” warrant. That’s a key detail.
And, I should point out, that my statement was not at all false. There had been a no-bail warrant issued in Arkansas, and it was, in fact, rescinded.
Well, that explains alot.
Does anyone care what you’ve often said? How does that relate to anything other than your feelings of self-importance?
You mean like you stating he couldn’t have been held without bail, even though an arrest warrant was reissued by Arkansas authorties in October?
Sloppy follow up by Washington state authorities, led by the chief law enforcement officer Christine Gregoire, failed in their duty to protect washington state citizens from Maurice Clemmon’s. That is fact.
@ 78
Don Joe being original on HA:
Wow! didn’t see that coming down the highway with high beams on…
Are you fucking retarded? A reissuance of an arrest warrant would have rescinded the bail had they chosen to pursue it. They didn’t for nearly 2 months time until the crimes were committed.
Now, You can continue to embarrass yourself by maintaining that WA state had nothing to do with Clemmon’s being on the lose or you can admit they fucked up royally. If you expect to have some respectability on this blog (though that’s in short supply with its current visitor and contributor make-up), you’ll need to bring something to the table besides raw ideolocially-based emotional arguments, Don Joe.
The 2nd adm was put in place because the founders believed that an armed population could not have there rights taked away by goverment. They also believed that the militia was every able bodied male. When you read the Constitution you need to read it as when it was written. Meaning, that you follow the defination of words at the time. The Constition is a contract between goverment and the people. When a contract is put into law it is defined by the language at the time it was put into effect. That means well regulated militia is defined by the definations when the 2nd adm was passed, because if you change this by using modern language than youcan change anything.
Also, the avrage citizen did not have cannons and other forms of artillery back then. they had rifles, muskets, pistols and blunderbusses. So the tanks and missle arguments are not valid.
I own no guns myself. However, if I thought the goverment was going to start to take them I would go and buy them.
#30 Noemie,
Have you noticed how well “mandatory” insurance for cars works? The authorities won’t even take uninsured cars off the road. Apparently no license or insurance are not a reason to remove a car from the road.
Re: Clemmons:
The whole DOC timeline is available here specifically @ 10-5-09 at 11:21am.
The better part of 55 days to corral the piece of shit and WA state dropped the ball. All there in black and white, Don Joe. No more excuses for the shitty performance by the WA state criminal justice system.
@60. correctnotright,
Actually the founding fathers made no differentiation of the high rate of fire military weapon of the day (smooth bore musket like a Brown Bess) which shot at a rate roughly 3-4 times faster than a hunting weapon (rifle). The musket also fired a much larger ball (75 caliber) which was more lethal on impact. It had poorer accuracy but with massed firing, the results were staggering. A hundred feet huh? What BS have you been listening to? Try 100 yards for a man sized target for a smooth bore. The groups ain’t pretty but it will do the job. A colonial rifle (yes, also flintlock) on the other hand can go multiple hundreds of yards and shoot tight groups (few inches) at 100 yds….at a much slower rate of fire. Yes I own a flintlock. It is silly and pointless and nobody needs one.I which goes fo rits Kalashnikov stabelmate.
Goldy, That editor (click to edit) blows when posts get long. I couldn’t see what I was typing at the end of the last post when I tried to add more.
Today:
The owner of Sunshine Espresso in Coeur d’Alene fought fire with fire and pulled a handgun on a 17-year-old boy who tried to rob the stand Wednesday morning.
Police arrested the teen shortly after the incident, which took place just before 6:30 a.m. in the 1900 block of Government Way.
Michelle Cornelsen said the teen walked up to her stand and demanded cash without showing the gun initially.
“He didn’t have it at first, he was playing with his pocket, I had a bad feeling though. I had a bad feeling about him,” Cornelsen said.
What the robber didn’t know is that Cornelsen has had her concealed weapons permit for seven years and had been gifted a new handgun for Christmas.
@ 80
Are you fucking retarded?
No, squirt. I’m observant. Apparently you aren’t.
A reissuance of an arrest warrant would have rescinded the bail had they chosen to pursue it.
I’ve merely noted that the news reports add a “no-bail” qualifier when referring to the warrant in effect in July, yet don’t add that qualifier when referring to the October warrant.
Indeed, in the KUOW story, we read:
So, according to at least one report, there was a significant difference between the warrant in effect in July and the warrant issued in October.
Now, You can continue to embarrass yourself by maintaining that WA state had nothing to do with Clemmon’s being on the lose or you can admit they fucked up royally.
Congratulations. You’ve committed two rhetorical errors in the span of a single sentence. I believe the errors are generally referred to as a “straw man argument” and the “fallacy of the excluded middle.” The former is particularly egregious given that I’d just called you out for making that same mistake earlier in this thread. Are you retarded?
Just to be clear, I’m taking issue with the claim you made in the comment @ 61 where you clearly laid substantial blame at the feet of the right-wing’s favorite bugaboo: “liberal” judges. To that end, it’s worth noting that you’re no longer talking about judges. Rather, you’re now chastising the Washington State DOC.
So, we can add a third rhetorical error to your rap sheet: equivocation. That should mean that you’ve just embarrassed yourself, but hell will freeze over before you admit it.
@ 83
The whole DOC timeline is available here
You apparently didn’t read the whole thing. What, for example, happened to the Arkansas warrant issued in August? Or, more importantly, where is the full text of the warrant that was in effect in July?
If that were true, squirt, you’d admit that the WA authorities had nearly 2 months to rearrest Clemmon’s on the warrant that was reissued out of Arkansas. They didn’t- they fucked the dog last and longest.
Therefore destroying your assertion that:
The facts are there in black and white, Don Joe, but it’s up to you to accept it. I can see despite all of the facts, you’re not ready to assign any blame at all to WA state in any form or manner. Which simply makes you a blind-to-reality partisan incapable of objectively processing information.
Oh well, this is HA, where reality is an alternate one….
…and apparently, just in this morning’s Seattle Times, they even further acknowledge how the state fumbled the ball on this one. How’s that for timing?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....oc31m.html
Don’t expect the top law enforcement official in the state to take any blame though, she only takes bribes. She leaves accountability at someone elses doorstep instead of where it belongs, hers.
Gender-confused dumbshit ESO:
Would that “top law enforcement official” to whom you refer be Attorney General Rob McKenna, Chief of the Washington State Patrol John Batiste, or Secretary of the Department of Corrections Eldon Vail? I can’t think of any other individual who might be construed as the state’s “top law enforcement official”.
As best I can tell, none of those individuals is female. So what the hell are you talking about?
Um, no stupid. Because none of the above are the top law enforcement official. The Governor of this state is. But, thanks for showing your complete and utter ignorance on the last day of 2009. Way to go, N.
That’s because you’re retarded. See above.
I know what I’m talking about, but next time you spout off about something, you really should check your facts first, dunderhead.
@ 88
[T]he WA authorities had nearly 2 months to rearrest Clemmon’s [sic] on the warrant that was reissued out of Arkansas.
I don’t recall disputing that fact, so I’m wondering why you feel the need to repeat it. More importantly, why do you choose to ignore the fact that Clemmons was in jail in November?
You have continued to assume that the October Arkansas warrant was not substantially different from the Arkansas warrant that was in effect in July. There is no evidence to support that assumption.
Indeed, the article that you link at 89 refers to the July warrant as a “fugitive” warrant. The October warrant made no mention of “fugitive” status, and simply authorized an arrest for parole violation. Go back and read the text of that warrant. It’s in the PDF you linked in your comment @ 83.
Therefore destroying your assertion that…
Hardly. My conclusion placing the bulk of the blame on the folks in Arkansas is based on two undisputed facts: 1) There was a “no-bail” warrant in effect in July that would have kept Clemmons in prison without bail; and 2) Arkansas rescinded that warrant. Had Arkansas not rescinded that warrant, four Lakeland police officers would be alive today.
Any fault we might find for anything that occurred after Arkansas rescinded the July warrant pales in comparison to this one cock-up, and the only way you might even want to deny that conclusion is because doing so allows you engage in a bit of partisan skullduggery aimed at “the top law enforcement official in the state.”
I can see despite all of the facts, you’re not ready to assign any blame at all to WA state in any form or manner.
I don’t think I could have phrased that sentence any better. You do, indeed, “see” a great many things “despite all the facts.”
Oh well, this is HA, where reality is an alternate one….
Well, we have idiots like you to thank for that.
And, you still haven’t admitted your own failure to substantiate your vilification of Pierce County judges back in your comment @61.
It’s no longer necessary to ask you if you’re retarded, squirt. You’ve managed to remove all doubt.
@ 91
Because none of the above are the top law enforcement official. The Governor of this state is.
Fascinating. This query doesn’t give very many instances where the phrase “top law enforcement official” is ever used to refer to the governor of any state.
Please, we have enough alternate reality around here. You really don’t need to keep adding to it.
It was interesting to see how quickly the usually law n’ order wingnuts endorsed citizens having handguns just to keep the cops honest.
Anything to contradict a ‘liberal’.
Politically Inccorect:
Talked to my friend last night. Can’t do the thing at the Lakewood police dept for a variety of reasons, but he certainly can arrange, and would be very happy to arrange, a face-to-face meeting with some off duty police officers.
However, he did say, as a citizen, you have every right to walk into the Lakewood police department and talk your shit.
So either way you wanna do it, we can get it done.
Balls or no balls. Let’s see what ya got.
HL @ 94:
Yeah, pretty funny. Although, that’s the same kind of “we support you” that they give our troops. You know “we stand behind our troops . . . waaaaaay benind them.”
Conservatives: claim to love cops until it’s a gun ownership issue, then they say you need to keep lethal weapons to keep ’em honest.
Conservatives: claim to support the troops until it comes to voting to support them with money, or listening to the generals on the ground, or resourcing wars properly.
Conservatives: bin Laden’s useful idiots.
Perhaps you should check with the AG’s office about it then. If you’re still confused by their answer, just think who has the ultimate power to grant clemency, stay executions and/or commute sentences upon those incarcerated.
Put your thinking caps on now and get back to me.
@ 97
Perhaps you should check with the AG’s office about it then.
Why, squirt? Since when did the rules of rhetoric require everyone else to do your homework for you?
just think who has the ultimate power to grant clemency, stay executions and/or commute sentences upon those incarcerated
If that were probative, then why is it so damn hard to find any instance, other than yours, where someone uses the term “top law enforcement official” to refer to the governor of any state?
Oh, wait. Only Little Ricky Dumbass can be correct on this. The entire rest of the universe has to be wrong.
Talk about alternate realities…
Put your thinking caps on now
Looks like we’ll have to, because Little Ricky Dumbass absolutely refuses to put his thinking cap on.
It’s not hard if you apply a little common sense, which may be where you’re having the problem figuring this out. You can play stupid all day for all I care, just as long as you know that I’m right.
In this case, yes. It’s just the facts as they are, not how I wished they were, like you.
No, just you. Feel free to prove me wrong though, DawnJo
@ 99
It’s not hard if you apply a little common sense
Note: the reason I can’t find anyone who uses the phrase “top law enforcement official” the way Little Ricky Dumbass does is not because I haven’t searched hard enough. Apparently, it’s because I haven’t closed my eyes, clicked my heals, and uttered “There’s no idiot like Little Ricky Dumbass” three times.
Feel free to prove me wrong though
Fine. To date, Little Ricky Dumbass has failed to produce a single instance where someone else has used the phrase “top law enforcement official” to refer to a governor. Therefore, Little Ricky Dumbass is, well, Little Ricky Dumbass.
QED
@ 100 DawnJo:
So you’re still ignorantly holding onto the notion that the Governor of the state IS NOT the chief law enforcement official in that state?
Damn, you’re even more ignorant than I previously thought. Sometimes, in your quest to win a winless argument, you should just have some integrity and concede defeat. Just a little advice. Hope Goldy isn’t reading this or your hopes of becoming a contributor to this WTP are shot.
Picture this:
Done Joe saddles up on his steed, pulls his lance and takes on those dastardly windmills…
Onward Don QuixJoete, Onward!!
@ 101
Having had his ass kicked on Pierce County judges and the extent to which one might reasonably blame the Washington State DOC for the release of Maurice Clemmons, Little Ricky Dumbass attempts to close out this thread by giving us a lame-assed impersonation of Humpty Dumpty.
And, even that fails given that this entire discussion between him and me began when I pointed out his error regarding his use of the word “whom”.
You are a truly ignorant dolt, Don Quixjoete. Seriously. Anyone that reads this thread can see I wiped you out on the facts of the case. Facts are inconvenient things aren’t they? Even todays article in the Seattle Times points out the numerous errors made. Now today, in another thread, you’re ignnorantly claiming that the Governor is not the chief law enforcement official in the state. Another ignorant position you can’t defend so…
Like I said, bleat on if you must in your frantic attempt to make your argument seem cogent or for that matter, coherent. But you can’t.
@ 103
Anyone that reads this thread
And…
Now today, in another thread
Not that it really needs repeating, but
QED
Yep like the psuedo-facts on Dow Constantine that you went on like a broken record about??? Typical right wing – repeat the big lie enough maybe somebody will believe it or in more profane language throw shite against a wall and see what sticks..
Fortunately, the only fact relevant to that whole sordid episode is that Suzie Hutchison IS a right wing Republican.
That will always be the inconvenient truth for right wingers:
Oh you’re a Republican? Been there, done that.
C’ya!!!!
And now for the Don QuiJoete pop quiz of the day to guage his intelligence.
Q: Being the Governor of the state of Washington, Is Christine Gregoire not also the top law enforcement official in this state. Only a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response is necessary to answer the question.
I’ll check in later for your answer Donnie boy.
106.
Is Christine Gregoire not also the top law enforcement official in this state.
No.
The News Tribune:
The Register:
Hell, even Sound Politics:
Not that it needs repeating, but:
QED
Oh,no. You’ve failed, Don Joe–with a 50/50 chance no less.
Perhaps you’ve read too simply into the question. How many National guard troops, in the history of the state AG’s office, have ever been called on to enforce federal and state laws within the state of Washington by the AG’s office?
There you have it Don QuixJoete.
No fee for the tutoring session, this ones on me.
Cheers
@ 108
How many National guard troops, in the history of the state AG’s office, have ever been called on to enforce federal and state laws within the state of Washington by the AG’s office?
Zero. That would generally be the case, because, according to Washington State law, the National Guard is not a law enforcement agency.
The National Guard does provide some assistance to law enforcement agencies for drug interdiction, but that’s under legislative authority, not the authority of the governor.
No need to thank me for educating you. A modest donation to the local United Way will do.
Citation needed for this claim.
But even so, it doesn’t matter. Washington state law does not supercede federal violations of laws as you may find out in the case of the Little Rock 9, when the POTUS ordered the national guard into Little Rock,AR when the Governor of that state refused to uphold federal law.
State National Guard may also be called up for federal service, with the consent of state governors, to repel invasion or suppress rebellion. It can enforce federal laws if the United States or any of its states or territories are invaded or are in danger of invasion by a foreign nation, or if there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the federal government.
As I said, this lesson is gratis
@ 110
Citation needed for this claim.
Definitions given under RCW 38.08.500.
Washington state law does not supercede federal violations of laws as you may find out in the case of the Little Rock 9, when the POTUS ordered the national guard into Little Rock,AR.
A) Somebody needs to do a web search for “posse comitatus”; and
B) The POTUS is not the governor.
It can enforce federal laws if the United States
Citation needed for this claim (see point “A” above).
It’s a good thing Little Ricky Dumbass’s lessons are provided gratis, because that’s precisely what they’re worth.
Boy you’re a dumb fucking cunt today, Dawnjo
If you could read, you’d see the following in the link you provided.
@ 112
I can see that you didn’t do that search for “posse comitatus.”
What a pity, but, then, you really are a complete ignoramus.
Thanks for playing.
@ 113
Schools out for recess, Don Joe. At least you’ve learned something today.
@ 113
At least you’ve learned something today.
Yes. I’ve learned just how easy it is to kick your ass.
This changes nothing about which entity in the state wields the widest law enforcement power within the state you dumbfuck.
So the AG, as you imply, as the top law enforcement official in this state cannot call upon federal entities to enforce federal laws.
Yet, the Governor can under some limitations, as I’ve shown you with citations.Now, you’re stupid, Don Joe, but hardly retarded. I think even you can do the locical reasoning on that one.
In conclusion, The Governor of any given state in the union is, in fact, the “TOP LAW ENFORCMENT OFFICIAL IN THE STATE”.
::This concludes this period of instruction::
@ 116
Yet, the Governor can under some limitations, as I’ve shown you with citations.
Except the “federal entities” to which you have referred are military. Now, what does posse comitatus say about using the military for law enforcement?
I think even you can do the locical reasoning on that one.
I have to grant it to you. You’ve been damn good at coming up with the Freudian slips in this thread.
False. The national guard is under control of the Governor, to enforce any violations of federal law that occur within the state he/she governs, until federal authorities step in.
Thus, Your dumbass asserts that AG McKenna ( a fine and more competent person than the governor), yields more power than the braindead current governor in WA state. This is a false assumption. As has been pointed out to you at the link to the RCW @ 112
who is to determine who is ‘sane’ and ‘capable’ of carrying a weapon.
strangely, the right to bear arms was designed to arm citizens against police.
and this is why we must support it.
@ 118
01/01/2010 AT 12:02 AM
OMG. This twit didn’t have anything better to do at two minutes past midnight on the first day of the year than to show up back here only to give us further evidence if his ignorance and incoherence.
False.
That wasn’t a True/False question.
The national guard is under control of the Governor, to enforce any violations of federal law that occur within the state he/she governs, until federal authorities step in.
Can the National Guard, “under control of the Governor” (whatever the hell that means) actually violate Federal Law? A simple yes or no answer will do.
This is a false assumption.
That wouldn’t be an assumption, it would be an assertion. It’s also not an assertion I’ve ever made. We aren’t talking about “power”. We’re talking about “authority.”
The list of words and phrases that you have misused, confused and abused in this thread grows with every comment you make–all in support of your idiosyncratic use of the phrase “top law enforcement officer.” Why not just save yourself all this embarrassment, and declare yourself to be Humpty Dumpty?
Don QuixJoete whined:
@ 120 – Quit deflecting, dumbass.
You were schooled on this thread by me and you know it. The fact remains that the Governor of the state is the top law enforcement officer of that state. You’re simply embarrassing yourself further by stating otherwise given the volume of proof I’ve provided to back up my assertion.
Thanks for playing, dumbass.
@ 120
Quit deflecting, dumbass.
The guy who started out vilifying Pierce Co. judges, then switched to the Washington State DOC, and, finally, ended up having to resort to a straw man argument in order to have even a remote chance of claiming so much as a pyrrhic victory wants me to stop deflecting.
There is absolutely no deflection in the question I asked, and which you have dodged: can the National Guard violate Federal law when acting under the authority of the governor?
Posse comitatus says that the military cannot be used for law enforcement purposes except under a specific legislative authority (e.g. Washington State’s laws regarding drug interdiction). Therefore, the governor cannot order, under her own authority, the National Guard to engage in law enforcement activities. Therefore, the governor’s legal authority to call upon the National Guard for other purposes, e.g. disaster relief, does not support your justification for referring to the governor as the “chief law enforcement officer” of the state.
Try a different avenue, squirt, or consider your argument null and void.
@ 122
Nice try, Dumbasss.
The fact remains that I’ve asserted all along in this entire thread that the Governor was the top law enforcement official in the state. You said she isn’t.
I’ve proved you wrong time and again and yet your dumbass continues to try to obfuscate from the original debate which was who wields more power from a law enforcement prospective. Even your fellow dumbasses here have figured out what you can’t, but then, you have your ego to protect. Just chalk this one up in the loss column to usher in the 2010 year. Congrats!!
I’m sure I’ll humble you more on this blog in the future, so I’m sincere when I say “Happy New Year, Don Joe”
…and Don Joe, for chrissakes, find some original material. Parroting Darryl isn’t exactly setting a good example.
@ 123
The fact remains that I’ve asserted all along
It is a fact that you have asserted something. What you haven’t done is provide a compelling justification for that assertion. It’s also equally clear that you have no rejoinder to the syllogism I posted @ 122.
It doesn’t really need to be repeated, but:
QED
find some original material
You mean like, “dumbass”?
Sure I have. It’s obvious to anyone following the thread but yourself, but then, admitting as much is harmful to your fragile ego. You just need a thicker skin, Don Joe.
If nothing else in this thread, that much is obvious.
@ 125
Sure I have.
If you’ve managed to conjure up a rebuttal to the syllogism I posted @122, then it must still be bouncing around in your vacuous little head. You certainly haven’t posted it here.
Posse comitatus, squirt. It blows your entire argument out of the water.
Is this Darryl or Don Joe? I can’t tell the difference anymore.
I’ve fucking used you on this thread Don QuixJoete. I’ve provided the facts necessary for everyone to see that the Governor is the top law enforcement official in the state.
It’s just your stubborn pride that has you banging away on your keyboard in desperation, to no avail and bleating on about “posse comitatus” when I’ve already addressed that @ 116.
Hopefully, you’ll leave Darryl’s nest in 2010 and begin to think on your own.
@ 127
I’ve already addressed that @ 116.
A denial is not a rebuttal–just one in the plenitude of rhetorical mistakes you’ve made in this thread.
Here’s what you said in @116
Posse comitatus is among the “some limitations” to which you referred. Pursuant to that limitation, I asked you:
To which you gave the non-answer of:
Except that the National Guard cannot enforce Federal law while, simultaneously, violating Federal law. Your answer directly contradicts posse comitatus. Hence, it’s a denial, not a rebuttal.
You’ve danced around the posse comitatus issue so laboriously as to make Tom DeLay look graceful, but the one thing you’ve not done is actually address it. Not surprising, really, given the damage it does to your argument.
By the way, what you call “stubborn pride” would be recognized by most human beings as “patience.” You really ought to spend some time with a good dictionary.
Your assertion is that the AG is the top law enforcement official in the state. I’ve Shown you time and again that that is incorrect as they does not have the power to call upon federal troops to uphold federal laws within their state.
i.e. The AG is the top law enforcement officer in upholding state laws, while the Governor is the top law enforcement officer tasked with upholding the state and federal laws within his/her state.
Quit being retarded, obstinate and just downright infantile and just admit defeat that is apparent to everyone here, but yourself and your shattered ego.
You’re wrong, just deal with it like an adult.
ESO, are you sure it’s OK for you to be using the internet without support staff near by to help you out?
If there’s a violation of federal law in Gig Harbor, the Gig Harbor city police will be the ones doing any arresting. There’s no need to get the governor or the national guard involved.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at, Michael. The fact is that the Governor is the top law enforcement official in the state. Don Joe believes it is the AG.
Do you have anything to add of substance?
@132
You might want to go back and look at the part of #130 where I quoted you as saying.
When in fact ANY law enforcement agency in the state can enforce federal law. A state park ranger can do it. No need to call up the governor or the national guard.
And then there’s that little issue with the AG being the “top law enforcement officer in Washington state” written right on the AG’s website.
@ 129
Your assertion is that the AG is the top law enforcement official in the state. I’ve Shown you time and again that that is incorrect as they does not have the power to call upon federal troops to uphold federal laws within their state.
[Why do you insist on using the word “power” when the correct word would be “authority”? It only serves to underscore your ignorance–not to mention your “they does not have”.]
Yet, according to posse comitatus, neither do governors have the authority to call upon the federal troops to enforce laws (federal or otherwise) within their state.
The AG is the top law enforcement officer in upholding state laws, while the Governor is the top law enforcement officer tasked with upholding the state and federal laws within his/her state.
First of all, this is the first time you’ve suggested that the governor has the authority to call upon federal troops to enforce state laws. Until now, you’ve only asserted that the governor has the authority to call upon the national guard to enforce federal law.
Back in your comment @110, you stated:
Nothing about state law there, and, even then, you were talking about the POTUS, not the governor. Moreover, you’ve never given a citation for the text that you appear to be quoting in your comment @110.
Where you have provided a citation, the text of RCW 38.08.010 that you quoted back at 112, doesn’t include the phrase “law enforcement” at all, so you’ve utterly failed to show that the governor has any authority to call upon federal troops for the purpose of law enforcement.
Lastly, this entire thread began when you used the term “top law enforcement officer” in the context of violations of state law. You’ve just tacitly admitted that both N in Seattle and I were quite correct for calling you out for your incorrect usage of the phrase “top law enforcement official” in your comment @89.
You could well have saved yourself all this embarrassment if you hadn’t waited to tacitly admit your error nearly 50 comments later.
Sure,but that doesn’t dimimish my assertion that the Governor is the top law enforcment official in the state. What are you attempting to say?
…and again, as I’ve challenged Don Joe, How many times has the AG called upon to muster the national guard to uphold Washington state or federal law? Answer: None. Because only the governor can call out the national guard, leaving that office as the top law enforcement official within the state.
@ 135
How many times has the AG called upon to muster the national guard to uphold Washington state law? Answer: None.
Little Ricky Dumbass fails to point out that the governor has called upon the national guard to enforce Washington state law exactly the same number of times that the AG has.
Pop quiz part 2, Don Joe:
Who is the top law enforcement official in Washington state?
if you fail this one, you’re simply retarded or just an obstinate dumbass that can’t admit defeat.
Your choice, son.
@ 137
Pop quiz part 2, Don Joe
Asked and answered, squirt.
And with that, you’ve just conceded the argument.
The question here is which entity is able to call upon the federal forces to uphold the law, the AG or the Governor?
…and the answer to that is the Governor, not the AG. Making them the top law enforcement official in the state.
Where mini-me?
Your desperate attempts to make your case are fading, Don Joe. Just be an adult and accept that you’ve lost this round.
@ 140
Not at all.
I see you’r having a little trouble trying to figure out how to spell, “uncle.”
@141
Go back and read comment 107. Damn, but your memory is short.
@ 141
Not answering the question is all I need to prove the point. Your dumbass has conceded this argument.
Thanks for playing…
@135
Glad to see that you agree with me that your quote stating
is full of shit.
According to the AG, the AG is the top law enforcer in the state. Even says so right on his website
He is the top law enforcer of Washington laws, not the top law enforcement official in the state. There is a difference there, michael.
Just to simplify this for yourself and don jo, “law enforcement” encompasses both federal and state laws. The AG is confined to only enforcing state laws, while the Governor is not. If you’re going to run your methane hole in here, at least bring something to the table.
@ 142
Not answering the question is all I need to prove the point.
Now you’re being incoherent. You can prove your point without answering your own question?
Your dumbass has conceded this argument.
What are you talking about? Or, are you talking to yourself? That would actually make sense.
@ 144
The AG is confined to only enforcing state laws, while the Governor is not.
Not in evidence. Repeating the assertion doesn’t make it true, and the citations you’ve given so far don’t support it.
This lesson is over.
Don Joe just continues to grasp at straws in order to save his ego. Anyone keeping score knows that the Governor is the top law enforcement official in the state.
Don Joe may not like that fact, but that is simply the reality that some leftists can’t admit. I’m done dealing with egomaniacs that can’t intelligently process this information. It is what it is…
Happy 2010 to all….
I’m starting to think that Little Ricky Dumbass read the phrase “conformance with” in RCW 38.08.010 and somehow the phrase morphed itself, in that massively dysfunctional brain of his, into “enforcement of.”
What do you think, Michael?
@ 147
This lesson is over.
Apparently the lesson is that Little Ricky Dumbass is dyslexic.
Hmmm… Law Enforcement Recognition Week
Maybe the AG was originally tasked with this but he decided to pass this onto the governor…
Oh, goody, now Puddy’s going to wade in.
Maybe the AG was originally tasked with this but he decided to pass this onto the governor…
Why would he have been? Those kinds of proclamations lie outside the purview of “law enforcement.”
Or, are you out to prove that you are as dyslexic as Little Ricky Dumbass?
@150
Since when is giving out a medal of honor a law enforcement activity? That’s the sort of thing that mayors and governors do.
@148
I think he shouldn’t be using the net without his support staff around. What group-home did he say he lived in again?
Bull shit. Where the fuck did you even come up with that. Please send me the link? That claim is just fucking bizarre.
Which explains this perfectly!
@ 155
Which explains this perfectly!
I was trying not to confuse the lad with too many facts, but, yes, one responsibility of the attorney general is to represent the state or any of its agencies in any civil dispute.
It helps to remember that he rarely writes precisely what he means to say, and manages to get himself caught out making all sorts of outrageous statements.
I’ve suggested that he spend time with a good dictionary, but he, also, rarely takes my advise, foolish lad that he is.
Maybe ESO was referring to the Constitution http://www.leg.wa.gov/lawsanda.....ution.aspx
Article III Executive…
SECTION 2 GOVERNOR, TERM OF OFFICE. The supreme executive power of this state shall be vested in a governor, who shall hold his office for a term of four years, and until his successor is elected and qualified.
SECTION 5 GENERAL DUTIES OF GOVERNOR. The governor may require information in writing from the officers of the state upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and shall see that the laws are faithfully executed.
SECTION 8 COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF. He shall be commander-in-chief of the military in the state except when they shall be called into the service of the United States.
SECTION 9 PARDONING POWER. The pardoning power shall be vested in the governor under such regulations and restrictions as may be prescribed by law.
SECTION 12 VETO POWERS. Every act which shall have passed the legislature shall be, before it becomes a law, presented to the governor.
SECTION 21 ATTORNEY GENERAL, DUTIES AND SALARY. The attorney general shall be the legal adviser of the state officers, and shall perform such other duties as may be prescribed by law.
The Judiciary Section III
SECTION 3 If a vacancy occur in the office of a judge of the supreme court the governor shall only appoint a person to ensure the number of judges as specified by the legislature, to hold the office until the election and qualification of a judge to fill the vacancy, which election shall take place at the next succeeding general election, and the judge so elected shall hold the office for the remainder of the unexpired term.
SECTION 5 SUPERIOR COURT In any county where there shall be more than one superior judge, there may be as many sessions of the superior court at the same time as there are judges thereof, and whenever the governor shall direct a superior judge to hold court in any county other than that for which he has been elected, there may be as many sessions of the superior court in said county at the same time as there are judges therein or assigned to duty therein by the governor, and the business of the court shall be so distributed and assigned by law or in the absence of legislation therefor, by such rules and orders of court as shall best promote and secure the convenient and expeditious transaction thereof.
SECTION 7 EXCHANGE OF JUDGES — JUDGE PRO TEMPORE.The judge of any superior court may hold a superior court in any county at the request of the judge of the superior court thereof, and upon the request of the governor it shall be his or her duty to do so.
SECTION 8 ABSENCE OF JUDICIAL OFFICER. Any judicial officer who shall absent himself from the state for more than sixty consecutive days shall be deemed to have forfeited his office: Provided, That in cases of extreme necessity the governor may extend the leave of absence such time as the necessity therefor shall exist.
SECTION 25 REPORTS OF SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES. Superior judges, shall on or before the first day of November in each year, report in writing to the judges of the supreme court such defects and omissions in the laws as their experience may suggest, and the judges of the supreme court shall on or before the first day of January in each year report in writing to the governor such defects and omissions in the laws as they may believe to exist.
SECTION 31 COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT. (1) There shall be a commission on judicial conduct, existing as an independent agency of the judicial branch, and consisting of a judge selected by and from the court of appeals judges, a judge selected by and from the superior court judges, a judge selected by and from the limited jurisdiction court judges, two persons admitted to the practice of law in this state selected by the state bar association, and six persons who are not attorneys appointed by the governor.
SECTION 12 BUDGET STABILIZATION ACCOUNT. d) Moneys may be withdrawn and appropriated from the budget stabilization account as follows:
(i) If the governor declares a state of emergency resulting from a catastrophic event that necessitates government action to protect life or public safety, then for that fiscal year moneys may be withdrawn and appropriated from the budget stabilization account, via separate legislation setting forth the nature of the emergency and containing an appropriation limited to the above-authorized purposes as contained in the declaration, by a favorable vote of a majority of the members elected to each house of the legislature.
ARTICLE X MILITIA
SECTION 2 ORGANIZATION — DISCIPLINE — OFFICERS — POWER TO CALL OUT The governor shall have power to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the state to suppress insurrections and repel invasions.
ARTICLE XIII STATE INSTITUTIONS
The regents, trustees, or commissioners of all such institutions existing at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, and of such as shall thereafter be established by law, shall be appointed by the governor, by and with the advice and consent of the senate; and upon all nominations made by the governor, the question shall be taken by ayes and noes, and entered upon the journal.
SECTION 12 ELECTION CONTESTS FOR SUPERIOR JUDGES, HOW DECIDED. In case of a contest of election between candidates, at the first general election under this Constitution, for judges of the superior courts, the evidence shall be taken in the manner prescribed by the Territorial laws, and the testimony so taken shall be certified to the secretary of state; and said officer, together with the governor and treasurer of state, shall review the evidence and determine who is entitled to the certificate of election.
Just can’t find in the your postulation in the State Constitution Don Joe or Michael.
Ummmm Michael,
First Puddy is very glad you used that article to show how fickle the Senate Health Care Bill is.
Second Puddy is very glad you used that article to show how Senator Nelson of Nebraska was “bribed” to be the 60th yes vote for the fickle Senate Health Care Bill.
Third Puddy is very glad you used that article to show how Rob McKenna is doing his job as Attorney General to make sure the people are getting the same representation on the fickle Senate Health Care Bill.
The South Carolina Atty General was directed by Senator Lindsey Graham to determine if the people in South Carolina are being treated differently from Nebraska.
Other states besides Nebraska are getting Medicaid breaks. Vermont, Louisiana and Massachusetts also got help with their programs.
Rob McKenna said “The arrangement that requires Washington state taxpayers, and those around the country, to permanently pay Nebraska’s additional Medicaid costs carries a price tag of untold millions.”
It’s fair treatment under the law for WA State. He’s doing his job to protect the citizens of WA State.
That should be “Just can’t find your postulation in the State Constitution Don Joe or Michael.”
And Michael, Puddy is glad Rob McKenna joined six other Attorney Generals to ensure their state populations are not being forced to pay for other states. Puddy is shocked the other 39 AGs are sitting on their hands.
@159
Just can’t find your postulation in the State Constitution Don Joe or Michael.
Can’t find Little Ricky Dumbass’s “postulation” (is there something wrong with the word “postulate”?) in the State Constitution either.
We’re talking about enforcement. How is it that these wingnuts can quote, at length, text that doesn’t include any variation of the word “enforce” and think that they’ve come up with something relevant? (Note: “executing” laws is not the same thing as “enforcing” them.)
@158
Never said the man wasn’t doing his job. As a matter of fact, I’m on record on here as supporting McKenna’s decision to join the lawsuit. ;-)
Puddy, while we’re on the subject of McKenna, maybe you should email the man, tell him of your findings, and that he might want to take his claim of being the top law enforcer in the state off his website.
Btw, when the state sues or prosecutes someone, it’s McKenna’s office that does it, not the Gov’s.
This is high school civics folks.
@ 157 Puddy ~
Yes, but
proregressives aren’t interested in facts. They simply invent them to fit their ideology.Right, stupid. And when someone is prosecuted and goes to jail, which government entity is allowed to grant a pardon or commute a sentence, The Governor or the AG?
Well, Dumbass? Answer the question…
Correct, dumbass. And the Governor enforces both state and federal laws, while the AG is limited to enforcing state laws, making the Governor the top law enforcement official in the state.
@ 164
And the Governor enforces both state and federal laws, while the AG is limited to enforcing state laws, making the Governor the top law enforcement official in the state.
Repeating that assertion over and over again doesn’t make it true. The one citation you’ve given, RCW 38.08.010, doesn’t mention law enforcement at all. Please, save yourself further embarrassment, and admit that you’ve fucked up. Royally.
You’re fucking retarded , DawnJo. The RCW in and of itself is proof that the Governor is the top law enforcment official in the state.
You’re simply too ignorant to understand this. Really, it’s time you stopped embarrassing yourself any further on this thread. If Goldy even had any thoughts of adding your dumb ass as a contributor, they were lost here on this thread where I handed you your ass.
Thanks for playing, son.
@ 166
The RCW in and of itself is proof that the Governor is the top law enforcment official in the state.
Kindly explain how a statute that does not include the phrase “law enforcement” is even remotely relevant to law enforcement. Also, kindly explain how you got from Washington State law regarding Washington State’s militia to any kind of conclusion about “federal troops”.
As I said, repeating your flawed conclusion over and over again doesn’t make it true. There are gaping holes in your reasoning on this, and continuously referring to me as “ignorant” is a woefully ineffective way of deflecting attention away from those holes.
Perhaps you need to re-read Puddy’s post @ 157 to cure your ignorance.
Let me know when that has happened…
Now, can the AG call for this? No
Can the Governor call for this? Yes
Making the Governor the top law enforcement official in the state.
Thanks for the ammo, Puddy. These dumbfucks won’t accept it, but it all there in black and white for them to absorb and digest if they choose too. Being the ignorant folks they are, though, I doubt it will sink in.
@ 168
Perhaps you need to re-read Puddy’s post @ 157 to cure your ignorance.
I guess this means you were wrong when you asserted:
The RCW in and of itself is proof that the Governor is the top law enforcment official in the state.
So much for my “ignorance.”
The governor shall have power to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the state to suppress insurrections and repel invasions.
So, you are arguing that “execute” in this sentence is entirely and completely synonymous with the word “enforce”? A simple yes or no answer will do.
@ 169
You’ve been proven both ignorant and wrong on all counts on this thread. Time to admit as much. But, like I said, ignorant people can’t move on. They’ll just keep posting and posting until they have the last word.
Kind of pathetic don’t you think?
@ 170
You’ve been proven both ignorant and wrong on all counts on this thread.
So you refuse to answer my question? I believe, by your reasoning, that means you’ve conceded this debate.
‘Course, I wouldn’t take it quite that far, but it does mean you’re too damn chicken to actually explore the differences in meaning between “executing the laws” and “enforcing the laws” and why the two words are not used interchangeably.
All there black and white in the post @ 157.
If you’re too ignorant or stupid to accept it, that’s your problem
The fact remains, that the Governor is the top law enforcement official in the state, not the AG.
Fragile ego’s notwithstanding, this is the reality.
@ 172
The fact remains, that the Governor is the top law enforcement official in the state, not the AG.
Now you’re back to simply repeating your flawed conclusion. I should point out that selecting the text of it and hitting the “Bold” button doesn’t do anything more to make it true than merely repeating it makes it true.
Yours is an all too typical wingnut response to a legitimate challenge. Repeat the assertion. If the challenge persists, then repeat the assertion while shouting.
I suggest you re-read puddybud’s post at 157.
It only makes you look stupid to continue to deny that the Governor is the top law enforcement official in the state, but hey, you’ve shown your ignorance is only exceeeded by your ego, which just can’t stand being wrong.
You’re pathetic Don QuixJoete….But mount that steed if you must and continue to tilt at those windmills..
It’s actually quite entertaining watching you lose your mind in here.
@ 174
I suggest you re-read puddybud’s post at 157.
OK. I went back and read it again. I still don’t find the word “enforcement” in the entire text.
Only in wingnut land can a person be deemed “ignorant” for failing to see something that isn’t there.
Little Ricky Dumbass @ 170: “But, like I said, ignorant people can’t move on. They’ll just keep posting and posting until they have the last word.”
Oh, Little Ricky, the irony of your posting the above is so rich. Thank you so much for providing endless amusement.
ESO,
So, it seems the way to settle this argument would be to email the Gov and the AG and ask them about who’s the top enforcement person is. Considering, there are a few references to the AG being it on his site and none on the Gov.’s site I’m betting the AG will be the correct answer.
I think you’re confusing executive power with enforcement power.
I’m still curious about this statement of yours.
Maybe your meaning and my reading of it are a little off? Please explain what you mean by this and show where you got the information that the AG is limited to enforcing state laws.
@ 176
It’s worth pointing out that an integral part of this wingnut ego issue is their mistaken belief that any one of us would regard kicking their diminutive intellects into the rhetorical gutter as a significant accomplishment. Hardly.
I’ve often said that my most significant accomplishment in life is to have dined for lunch with Mildred Mottahedeh and paid for my own meal. Anything these twits can throw up here pales in comparison.
Mildred Mottahedeh sounds like she was a really cool human.
I try to stay out of these types of arguments but, ESO’s claims about how government functions are so F’ing bizarre that I wanted to find out how he formed them.
178
You are correct, of course. Our trolls do think that we would be overcome with joy to beat them in an argument. The reality is that beating one of our trolls in an argument is about as challenging as beating a one-legged man in a foot race. Speaking of missing limbs, our trolls are at least as obstinate as the Black Knight in Monty Python’s Holy Grail in refusing to recognize or acknowledge that they’ve been beaten.
Unfortunately for you, this rarely happens. Just like in this thread where I slapped Dawn Jo around and made him learn something he didn’t know prior to this thread. His ego is just too large for him to admit as much.
The Governor is the top law enforcement official in the state as has been proven time and again in here.
Thanks for playing trolls.
@ 181
Hm… Seems to me that someone said this:
But, like I said, ignorant people can’t move on. They’ll just keep posting and posting until they have the last word.
Oh, yeah. The guy who disappeared for nigh unto two days, waited until this thread had scrolled off the bottom of the list of most recent posts under “Recent HA Brilliance…” and snuck back in here at 5:15 AM in order to post a comment that does nothing but repeat the assertion he has still failed to support with adequate documentation.
Actually, it’s called having a life. Something you wouldn’t know about. I pretty much proved everything I said in here so there is really no point in continuuing to post other than to correct you. And if you were still looking for that more than adequate documentation, Puddybud more than adequately posted it @ 157.
But then, you’re not interested in facts because they don’t support your position, which is not my problem. You really need to get out of the house more, Don Joe. Sitting inside waiting on someone to post on some backwater blog can not be a healthy hobby.
@ 183
Actually, it’s called having a life.
That might have been a legitimate claim if your reentrance hadn’t consisted of nothing but repeating what you’ve already said so many times that it’s not worth counting them all.
The only possible reason for your comment @181 is a lame attempt to get in the last word.
And if you were still looking for that more than adequate documentation, Puddybud more than adequately posted it @ 157.
And, as I’ve already pointed out, the text that Puddy quotes doesn’t contain the word “enforce” or any variation of it. You’ve yet to explain how you interpret that text to imply “enforce”, despite my repeated attempts to ask you that very question.
But then, you’re not interested in facts
Well, I’m quite interested in the fact that you continue to duck my questions.