"Who really cares about it being unconstitutional?" Pittsburgh City Councilwoman Tonya Pay

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

But the dirty little secret is that if you adjust U.S. "gun violence" statistics to factor out "gun violence" committed by African-Americans, then the remaining statistical pool shows a violence rate close to Great Britain's (Or the U.K., whatever)

Click to expand...

Sorry, Alex, but now you're appearing a tad racist. African-American has nothing to do with it (other than circumstantially). Plenty of hispanics, whites, and others are involved in the demographic responsible for the violence you speak of: gangs.

Now, prohibition has a lot more to do with gangs than does race, in my experience. Race is, at most, an excuse.

The racist makes an implicit excuse for the assumed inferiority of members of other races. Only the truly tolerant reserves judgement solely on the facts, and is able to express unmitigated disgust for violent acts on face value.

imported post

Gordie wrote:

Statements like that should automatically disqualify a person from office.:cuss:

Click to expand...

Our POTUS-elect would be in trouble then.

imported post

I am only pointing out that African-American majority areas have a disproportionate rate of violent crime, and this is evidenced by the fact that Prince George's County in Maryland (the wealthiest black-majority county in the United States) had a higher crime rate than any other jurisdiction (save for Washington DC) in the National Capital Region. My cab-driving contemporaries in PG have a job only slightly less hazardous than juggling chain saws while dancing on spinning helicopter blades.

And I posit that the tendency of African-American politicians (and their electorate) to be anti-gun contibutes to that crime rate because for one thing witness intimidation is that much easier. In other words, the African-American classic anti-gun political culture ironically positively invites thugs armed with guns to do their dirty work, and a murderer behind bars is a murderer who might just be a dead POS if his victim had been armed.

I am NOT saying that black folks are inherently violent or evil, but rather they have been suckered by shyster politicians of every race into accepting the role of Government-dependent serfs. The politicians who have corralled them so now seek - nay have been seeking for ages - to drag the rest of the populace into the same sorry state.

We have an exhibit here in Alexandria of an old slave market replete with examples of the harsh shackles worn by the benighted souls destined for places they had raher not go and a dependence against which they chafed. The 14th Amendment (among other enactments) was designed to forever strike off those shackles. It is no damn wonder that those who would put invisible shackles on free people do not care what the Constitution says.

Hope this clears it up.

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

I am only pointing out that African-American majority areas have a disproportionate rate of violent crime, and this is evidenced by the fact that Prince George's County in Maryland (the wealthiest black-majority county in the United States) had a higher crime rate than any other jurisdiction (save for Washington DC) in the National Capital Region.   My cab-driving contemporaries in PG have a job only slightly less hazardous than juggling chain saws while dancing on spinning helicopter blades.

And I posit that the tendency of African-American politicians (and their electorate) to be anti-gun contibutes to that crime rate because for one thing witness intimidation is that much easier.  In other words, the African-American classic anti-gun political culture ironically positively invites thugs armed with guns to do their dirty work, and a murderer behind bars is a murderer who might just be a dead POS if his victim had been armed. 

I am NOT saying that black folks are inherently violent or evil, but rather they have been suckered by shyster politicians of every race into accepting the role of Government-dependent serfs.  The politicians who have corralled them so now seek - nay have been seeking for ages - to drag the rest of the populace into the same sorry state.  

We have an exhibit here in Alexandria of an old slave market replete with examples of the harsh shackles worn by the benighted souls destined for places they had raher not go and a dependence against which they chafed.   The 14th Amendment (among other enactments) was designed to forever strike off those shackles.  It is no damn wonder that those who would put invisible shackles on free people do not care what the Constitution says.

Hope this clears it up.

Click to expand...

Yup, that cleared it up nicely. And I agree with you.

imported post

Evil Ernie wrote:

Technically, she could be impeached and on a stretch, be on trial for treason. Afterall, she did partake in the "Oath of Office" to solemnly swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, didn't she? Don't all public officials have to do that?

Click to expand...

As a first step, that would be good.

Her statementis irresponsible in the extreme. Does she not realize her only authority,and her only legitimacy as a government official derive from the state constitution?

Once she throws that out the window, she's saying all bets are off on the constitution.

She just needs to be recalled or impeached. On that one statement. Even like-minded gov't scum need to get her out of there just for her stupidity. At least most like-mindedgov't scumhave enough sense to hide or smoke-screen their attitude.

imported post

Evil Ernie wrote:

Technically, she could be impeached and on a stretch, be on trial for treason. Afterall, she did partake in the "Oath of Office" to solemnly swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, didn't she? Don't all public officials have to do that?

Click to expand...

From the Pittsburgh City Paper... (edited to fix link)

Her oath of office includes:

that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of this State and the Charter of this City and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of office to the best of my ability." Fortunately, nobody seems to monitor this very carefully.

Click to expand...

imported post

Tess wrote:

Evil Ernie wrote:

Technically, she could be impeached and on a stretch, be on trial for treason. Afterall, she did partake in the "Oath of Office" to solemnly swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, didn't she? Don't all public officials have to do that?

Click to expand...

From the Pittsburgh City Paper...

Her oath of office includes:

that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of this State and the Charter of this City and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of office to the best of my ability." Fortunately, nobody seems to monitor this very carefully.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Good lookup Tess, thanks!

Well there you have it. So what's the next step? Does a PA resident file a charge, or is she protected by "qualified immunity" for such a heinous comment?
Or does her peers start the ball rolling?

imported post

From Wikipedia;

"Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority."

Sedition laws somewhat equate to Terrorism and Public Order laws.

So seditious acts while under oath of office?

imported post

If you want to know who is to blame for the out of control violence in America, look no further than the government, and its failed "war of drugs". America wasn't always so violent a place. Not all that long ago, violent crime rates were similar to most European countries. In fact, the rise in violent crime rates coincides pretty precisely with certain events, such as laws declaring drugs to be illegal, and then the HUGE explosion of violence coincides exactly with formal declaration of the "war on drugs".

Regardless of how you feel about drugs and whether or not they should be legalized, no rational American can believe that the so-called "war on drugs" has had any negative impact on the drug trade at all, or that it can be considered anything but an utter, dismal failure.

imported post

Slayer of Paper wrote:

If you want to know who is to blame for the out of control violence in America, look no further than the government, and its failed "war of drugs". America wasn't always so violent a place. Not all that long ago, violent crime rates were similar to most European countries. In fact, the rise in violent crime rates coincides pretty precisely with certain events, such as laws declaring drugs to be illegal, and then the HUGE explosion of violence coincides exactly with formal declaration of the "war on drugs".

Regardless of how you feel about drugs and whether or not they should be legalized, no rational American can believe that the so-called "war on drugs" has had any negative impact on the drug trade at all, or that it can be considered anything but an utter, dismal failure.

Click to expand...

+1 I alluded to this above, and I try to point it out as often as is relevant. This really should be the only topic of conversation when we discuss violence at the societal level.

imported post

Damn right. They end Prohibition and the Mob is outta business except for whores and ethnic extortion, then they start with marijuana and now every small time hood is in the act. Does make for a nice chronic crisis to justify everything the Government wants to do, though......which is why we have it.

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

Does make for a nice chronic crisis...

Click to expand...

You just couldn't resist, could you?

imported post

JBURGII wrote:

From Wikipedia;

"Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority."

Sedition laws somewhat equate to Terrorism and Public Order laws.

So seditious acts while under oath of office?

Click to expand...

Hmmmmm.

So, it sounds like the Governor needs to call out the militia against the seditious City Council. Since the rest aren't denouncing her, they must be in on it.

Where do I enlist?

Interesting thought really. When the government itself subverts the constitution, the government itself is seditious, no? Then we have an obligation to put down the sedition, no?

imported post

Sure hope this gal doesn't have any thoughts about a further political career. It's IMHO that this is the thought pattern of all the Liberals (read that progressive's, socialists, communists,,or whatever we have now). They think that "We the People" are too stupid and uneducated to govern ourselves and that we need to be spoonfed. IMHO she should be tried for High Treason, taken out and summarily hung. Just me sayin' it. Keep your Powder dry.

imported post

I sent a note expressing that her comment was treason!

imported post

KansasMustang wrote:

Sure hope this gal doesn't have any thoughts about a further political career.

Click to expand...

Well our totally awesome POTUS-elect has said in the past that the Constitution is "fundamentally flawed". Look where that got HIM. :quirky

imported post

Making blatantly disrespectful comments about the Constitution should be automatic grounds for dismissal as a public servant.

Saddens me to see so many of these 2-bit wanna-be tyrants serving Pa.

Pitchforks anyone?

imported post

Hmmmm.........I think I get it now. Since the Constitution limits the Government and not the People; and since the Left thinks they can re-define the language at whim, then anyone who is on "The Right" (Which includes every second-Amendment advocate whether or not they actully have a Right or Conservative political bent) is de facto "the government" even if they are not in posession of the political majority or power; then let anyone who is on the Left's loopy (and flexible and changeable - look at Joe Lieberman ) definition of "The Right" . Let "the Right" try anyting the Left doesn't like and they will throw the Constitution up in their faces.

Conversely "the Left" is "the People" (and of course "the states" when "State's Rights" serves their purposes) and membership in "the Left" is defined by a loud-mouthed elitist minority. Every member of every ethnic, religious, sexual and other minority is a member of the people unless of course that minority does not conform to the Leftist role prescribed and/or inconveniences and/or embarrasses them. And naturally they are the people whether they are actually in power or not, and thusly can do anything they want.

Of course there are parts of the Constitution that seem to contradict this. That's where this "Living and breathing" crap that lots of kids were taught in grade school comes in handy. A word means what the Left says it does.

This is Government by the Mad Hatter's Tea Party. Among many other things the current finance mess is a result. How did they do it?

A large part of it is that the Left has been infiltrating the educaational system and brainwashing kids for nearly fifty years. The end result is a City Council member who finally voices the point that has been unspoken for decades: Who cares if it is unconstitutional, as long as "The People" (as perversely defined) are pleased??

:shock:

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Who really cares about it being unconstitutional?"

Click to expand...

And she is just a city councilwoman. Imagine what else she would think, say and do if she ever gets to be elected mayor, state representative, or state senate. I am not saying she would, or she should be, but imagine ...

Somebody once said, "Power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely."

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Alexcabbie wrote:

But the dirty little secret is that if you adjust U.S. "gun violence" statistics to factor out "gun violence" committed by African-Americans, then the remaining statistical pool shows a violence rate close to Great Britain's (Or the U.K., whatever)

Click to expand...

Sorry, Alex, but now you're appearing a tad racist. African-American has nothing to do with it (other than circumstantially). Plenty of hispanics, whites, and others are involved in the demographic responsible for the violence you speak of: gangs.

Now, prohibition has a lot more to do with gangs than does race, in my experience. Race is, at most, an excuse.

The racist makes an implicit excuse for the assumed inferiority of members of other races. Only the truly tolerant reserves judgement solely on the facts, and is able to express unmitigated disgust for violent acts on face value.

Click to expand...

Actually he's right and no, it is definitely not racist to state factual data. Blacks do account for a highly disproportionate rate of crime in the U.S. But consider this, if you will.

Seems I remember reading a book by Thomas Sowell some time back where he stated the same thing but also stated that prior to 1950, black Americans had a lower rate of violent crime that the white population did. Curious isn't it. Now one must ask how could this be? Well he gave reasons of which I agree and there are a few. But suffice it to say that the breakdown of the black family and the creation of the welfare state are primary reasons for this. Our fellow black Americans have been handed an evil thing in name of continued constituency and dependence. The very people who claim to have done them good and helped them are the ones who have done them ill.

Most all black Americans want the same things in life as most all white Americans. No surprises there. We are all in this together and therefore have a vested interest and a stake in the success and future of our nation. What I would really like to hear are more Thomas Sowell's and more Walter Williams' and more Bill Cosby's and more Michael Steele's stand up and denounce the perveyers of crime in their counties and states, and the mindset in the legislatures and assemblies that patronizes this crap.

Oh enough and it's late.