Puterbac News Network and Political Discussion Thread

[Toemeesleather]

If this was happening in a red state, it would be all over the ABCCBSNBCCNN networks, and would somehow be linked to the repub candidates.



Four homicides over the weekend and two more Monday morning pushed Chicago's homicide count so far this year to double the same period last year.

The city has recorded at least 95 homicides since the first of the year, compared to 47 last year, according to data kept by the Tribune. The city has also more than doubled the amount of people shot - about 420 this year compared to 193 last year.

Thirty-two people were shot in Chicago over the weekend, the youngest among them a 3-year-old boy shot in the leg in the Englewood neighborhood.

[bluetick]

A key element in the spike in shootings is that criminals are not feeling the repercussions of the justice system, McCarthy said. Thousands of cases involving weapons violations were thrown out in Chicago's Cook County criminal courts between 2006 and 2013, according to the Chicago Reporter. More felony cases involving guns were thrown out than any other kind of case.

The chief of the state's attorney's office criminal prosecutions bureau said most of the dismissed cases "were based on a judge's decision to suppress evidence because a gun was intercepted in a way that violates the Fourth Amendment. Under that scenario, the prosecutors office would have no choice but to throw out the charge.

On Monday, Emanuel reiterated his demands for gun law reform, calling on legislators to fight for change.

[bluetick]

The harder states make it to get guns - like New York - the fewer people die because of them, a new analysis of firearm restrictions shows.

New York State, with its relatively strict laws - restrictions that are even tougher in the five boroughs - had 4.2 gun deaths per capita in 2013, the third-fewest number of gun-related deaths nationwide, according to the National Journal's study released Monday.

[bluetick]

heh I just post those for toe's benefit. Guns aren't going anywhere, and neither are abortions or gay marriages. And eventually it can be said that legal pot isn't going anywhere, either.

[Professor Tiger]

Scalia's replacement will solidify the liberal majority that will negate the second amendment. This has always been on the left's to do list, along with abortion, gay marriage and government-run health care, which they won with indispensable help of SCOTUS. Guns ARE going someplace - underground. It will be the Probibition of the 21st century.

[hedge]

I wish you were prohibited in the 21rst century...

[Professor Tiger]

Be of good cheer. By the PAH's second term, I might be.

[Professor Tiger]

I'm a white, heterosexual, European ancestry, male, Christian, climate change doubting, Constitutionalist (including the 1st, 2nd, and 10th amendments) - I.e., EVERYTHING the left utterly despises, and they're running the show for the foreseeable future. There's a gulag cell out there somewhere with my name on it. So yes, I might be "prohibited" in the name of peace, love, pluralism, tolerance, diversity and inclusion.

[Johnette's Daddy]

I'm a white, heterosexual, European ancestry, male, Christian, climate change doubting, Constitutionalist (including the 1st, 2nd, and 10th amendments) - I.e., EVERYTHING the left utterly despises, and they're running the show for the foreseeable future. There's a gulag cell out there somewhere with my name on it. So yes, I might be "prohibited" in the name of peace, love, pluralism, tolerance, diversity and inclusion.

Turn your cell phone back on. We sent the blacked-out Black Hawks for you, but they can't confirm your location.

[hedge]

"There's a gulag cell out there somewhere with my name on it."

Here's hoping. In the meanwhile, you are clearly living in a gulag of your own making, shrieking out your fevered fantasies of liberal oppression and terrorism. That pleases me...

[bluetick]

Prof will get consideration for speaking out against dubya's Iraq foray. He'll earn cellblock capo, trustee, whatever...maybe counseling other cons about the virtues of trustworthiness and honest dealings. Drawing on his Auburn football booster experience.

[aTm]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... l-grounds/

The Texas Supreme Court basically affirmed what I believed about all of that Perry stuff.

[bluetick]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... l-grounds/

The Texas Supreme Court basically affirmed what I believed about all of that Perry stuff.

Article writer states that Perry wanted the DA to resign over a DUI arrest, whereas other sources say that the fact that the DA was investigating Perry in a corruption scandal regarding the Texas Cancer Research Institute was Perry's main interest in playing political hardball. In fact the 7.5 mil that Perry vetoed would have gone directly to the crimes unit that was investigating the scandal. Granted this is an opinion piece, but adding those details would've balanced the scales somewhat, don't you think aTm?

[aTm]

Owlman, JD, and I already had a bit of a discussion about it. What scales do you want to be balanced? The slant of this article? Its not my article. I merely chose it because the writer went into the nuts and bolts of the decision rather than just "Perry was cleared" news summary.

The indictment against Perry said zilch about the Texas Cancer Research Institute. The facts given in the indictment are that he threatened her to resign or he would veto the funds and then the fact that he did do that. The Cancer Institute thing may be part of the politics of the big picture but it had zero to do with the actual charges that were filed against him so why would the column bring it up?

[Professor Tiger]

What difference, at this point, does it make?

And BTW, people like me are one unbaked wedding cake or one refused condom requisition away from the slammer right now.

[hedge]

I wish your dad had not refused a condom the dies nefastus you were conceived...

[bluetick]

The indictment against Perry said zilch about the Texas Cancer Research Institute. The facts given in the indictment are that he threatened her to resign or he would veto the funds and then the fact that he did do that. The Cancer Institute thing may be part of the politics of the big picture but it had zero to do with the actual charges that were filed against him so why would the column bring it up?

Okay then, the indictment didn't mention Perry's motive for threatening her to resign. The author gave his and Perry's version (DUI indignation). Others point out that the DA's criminal unit - the same outfit that brought down Tom Delay - was in the process of investigating Perry and some cronies. Perry threatened and eventually pulled all funding for the unit (the crux of the indictment, right?). Self-serving on Perry's part? Nahhh heh

[Johnette's Daddy]

Trump tied in Texas, winning in Florida . . .

"CAN NOTHING STOP THIS MAN???"

[Professor Tiger]

Yes. The Democrats can.

[sardis]

Yeah, they stopped Justice Scalia...