POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

[Handyman]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

And what is the solution?

Well Trump will tell you his "Final Solution" after his re-election...

 

[French Rage]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

The beauty taken from our cities can never be replaced. If only we hadn't lost the ability to make other statues to put in their place!

 

[JF_Gophers]

Unless it was co-opted by the very people who organized it that doesnt hold water sorry. The event became the "Unite The Right" rally because the guy who organized it made it so.

I was in no way defending it.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Unless it was co-opted by the very people who organized it that doesnt hold water sorry. The event became the "Unite The Right" rally because the guy who organized it made it so.

The strange thing is, if the guy had stated in his permit application that he wanted to march through the park wearing Nazi uniforms, carrying Nazi and Confederate flags, and singing Dixie, I'm not sure the City could have denied him. I'm sure they would have tried, but I think there are famous cases out there on that issue, lampooned in the Blues Brothers, that would protect that right. But I'm sure most of these guys are too stupid to know that and figure that if they disclose it's a nazi march the city will have a right to turn them down.

 

[mookie1995]

Well I'm so glad that Trump "waited for all the facts to come in."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...m-that-counter-demonstrators-lacked-a-permit/

Mariam, I Dickler

 

[rufus]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

The beauty taken from our cities can never be replaced. If only we hadn't lost the ability to make other statues to put in their place!

Yeah, Trumpy really cares about preserving art.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/07/trump-files-when-donald-destroyed-priceless-art-build-trump-tower/

he construction of Trump Tower may have been Donald Trump’s greatest achievement, but it was a disaster for the city’s artistic legacy.

To build his skyscraper, Trump first had to knock down the Bonwit Teller building, a luxurious limestone building erected in 1929. The face of the building featured two huge Art Deco friezes that the Metropolitan Museum of Art wanted to preserve. The museum asked Trump to save the sculptures and donate them, and the mogul agreed—as long as the cost of doing so wasn’t too high.

But then, according to journalist Harry Hurt III in his book Lost Tycoon, Trump discovered that taking out the sculptures would delay demolition by two weeks. He wasn’t willing to wait. “On his orders, the demolition workers cut up the grillwork with acetylene torches,” Hurt wrote. “Then they jackhammered the friezes, dislodged them with crowbars, and pushed the remains inside the building, where they fell to the floor and shattered in a million pieces.”

 

[Drew S.]

I thought you were all for taking guns away from the mentally ill?

Or have you forgotten what you wrote last week?

If a doctor decides someone is a threat to themselves or others absolutely. That wasn't the case with what Obama did.

 

[unofan]

If a doctor decides someone is a threat to themselves or others absolutely. That wasn't the case with what Obama did.

So someone who is too mentally unstable to manage their own affairs is nevertheless sound enough to own a gun?

Please tell me you aren't saying that.

 

[rufus]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

So someone who is too mentally unstable to manage their own affairs is nevertheless sound enough to own a gun?

Please tell me you aren't saying that.

No, he's saying that. I can't tell a $5 from a $1 in my wallet, but I can differentiate between someone breaking into my house, and the Meals on Wheels person dropping off my lunch.

 

[Drew S.]

So someone who is too mentally unstable to manage their own affairs is nevertheless sound enough to own a gun?

Please tell me you aren't saying that.

Have you ever seen any statistics on personal finance? There are a lot of people who make six figures who live paycheck to paycheck and don't pay their bills on time. Beyond that, it's easier for a lot of families to let someone else handle it. Not all situations are the same.

 

[rufus]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Have you ever seen any statistics on personal finance? There are a lot of people who make six figures who live paycheck to paycheck and don't pay their bills on time. Beyond that, it's easier for a lot of families to let someone else handle it. Not all situations are the same.

That's not what we're talking about, nor what the Obama policy entailed. It was about someone who did not have the mental ability to handle their financial affairs at all, not just late on their payments. People who fall pray to con men, don't even know they have bills to pay, let alone pay them, or how and who to pay them.

Someone who knows enough to let someone else handle their financial affairs for them is by definition handling their financial affairs, and capable of doing so.

But we've been all through this before. you don't understand, and what's more, you don't want to understand. Because.................Obama. Anything he did is bad. But give Trumpy a chance, cause he's gonna fix all that.

 

[unofan]

Have you ever seen any statistics on personal finance? There are a lot of people who make six figures who live paycheck to paycheck and don't pay their bills on time. Beyond that, it's easier for a lot of families to let someone else handle it. Not all situations are the same.

You do realize that being declared mentally incompetent is not the same as being bad with money, right?

 

[rufus]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

You do realize that being declared mentally incompetent is not the same as being bad with money, right?

No, he doesn't understand that either. Obama was just out to take people's guns, any way he could.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

I just learned that the ACLU won a case that got the permit for the Saturday march by the white nationalists. Rationale by the ACLU? Free speech, even that which they abhor.

And, I just found out --> I agree with Noam Chomsky (I suspect it's the first time I've said those words):

The left-wing "Antifa" movement is rising in prominence after clashing with white supremacists in Charlottesville, Va., but one progressive scholar says the anti-fascists feed the fire they seek to extinguish.

"As for Antifa, it's a minuscule fringe of the Left, just as its predecessors were," Noam Chomsky told the Washington Examiner. "It's a major gift to the Right, including the militant Right, who are exuberant."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/noam-chomsky-antifa-is-a-major-gift-to-the-right/article/2631786

Antifa would've been well served to stay home and watch the Bed Bath tiki torch fools stand alone in the sun and be disinfected.

 

[BassAle]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Have you ever seen any statistics on personal finance? There are a lot of people who make six figures who live paycheck to paycheck and don't pay their bills on time. Beyond that, it's easier for a lot of families to let someone else handle it. Not all situations are the same.

you moron, we've talked about this many times. managing money poorly and living paycheck to paycheck doesn't make you deemed mentally incapable of managing your affairs -- it makes you stupid.

Being deemed mentally incapable of managing your affairs requires a medical diagnosis.

 

[Drew S.]

That's not what we're talking about, nor what the Obama policy entailed. It was about someone who did not have the mental ability to handle their financial affairs at all, not just late on their payments. People who fall pray to con men, don't even know they have bills to pay, let alone pay them, or how and who to pay them.

Someone who knows enough to let someone else handle their financial affairs for them is by definition handling their financial affairs, and capable of doing so.

But we've been all through this before. you don't understand, and what's more, you don't want to understand. Because.................Obama. Anything he did is bad. But give Trumpy a chance, cause he's gonna fix all that.

Yeah Fortune 500 companies, police departments, schools they never fall for con men. The opposite of your last paragraph is certainly true for you and others on here. This was an awful rule that took away due process from thousands of people for no good reason. Unless there are all these cases of meals on wheels folks being blown away that I'm not aware of.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

I just learned that the ACLU won a case that got the permit for the Saturday march by the white nationalists. Rationale by the ACLU? Free speech, even that which they abhor.

And, I just found out --> I agree with Noam Chomsky (I suspect it's the first time I've said those words):



http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/noam-chomsky-antifa-is-a-major-gift-to-the-right/article/2631786

Antifa would've been well served to stay home and watch the Bed Bath tiki torch fools stand alone in the sun and be disinfected.

I posted a link to the decision earlier this morning.

 

[Handyman]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

I was in no way defending it.

I know I was just making sure no one used that argument after. We have a lot of people in this thread that, for lack of a better word, co-opt any possible reason to nullify and passively defend what is going on and I didnt want your argument caught up in that

On another not what exactly does a statue of the Confederacy have to do with the chant "You will not replace us"? Taking down a statue of a traitor isnt going to replace the entire White Republican personhood. Seems to me either "us" means Confederates (which I was told wasnt who the South is anymore) or they meant White People in general (you know cause despite Whites being "Supreme" they cant seem to stop being replaced or something) which has nothing to do with a statue.

 

[Scarlet]

I know I was just making sure no one used that argument after. We have a lot of people in this thread that, for lack of a better word, co-opt any possible reason to nullify and passively defend what is going on and I didnt want your argument caught up in that

On another not what exactly does a statue of the Confederacy have to do with the chant "You will not replace us"? Taking down a statue of a traitor isnt going to replace the entire White Republican personhood. Seems to me either "us" means Confederates (which I was told wasnt who the South is anymore) or they meant White People in general (you know cause despite Whites being "Supreme" they cant seem to stop being replaced or something) which has nothing to do with a statue.

That was my point.

 

[Handyman]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

The strange thing is, if the guy had stated in his permit application that he wanted to march through the park wearing Nazi uniforms, carrying Nazi and Confederate flags, and singing Dixie, I'm not sure the City could have denied him. I'm sure they would have tried, but I think there are famous cases out there on that issue, lampooned in the Blues Brothers, that would protect that right. But I'm sure most of these guys are too stupid to know that and figure that if they disclose it's a nazi march the city will have a right to turn them down.

I doubt the city would have and I would have defended the city for allowing it. I would think though the city would have frowned on the bringing of weapons and torches though on the grounds of safety.

The problem with the defenders of the rally isnt their beliefs in White Supremacy (though that is a different set of issues) it is their belief that their Freedom of Speech (pardon the pun) trumps everyone else's. Racists have every right to spew their crap publicly if they choose. (they cant act on it obviously) But f non-racists show up to try and shout them down that is just the way it is. They dont seem to get that. No one's freedom was infringed on until things got violent.