The political attacks against Crime Stoppers Houston escalates

[mattyt36]

10 hours ago, Blue Dogs said:

The fact is jackasses like Ellis have been hostile toward law enforcement. Folks like him & Dora the Explorer are a disgrace to this country. 

(I know this won’t go anywhere, but …)

TELL US MORE, @Blue Dogs

You’ve started this wonderful conversation about Crime Stoppers, filled with facts and all

So enlighten us on this topic as well, please

I suppose—obviously principled and totally levelheaded guy that you are—the fact that she has to hire private security because she can’t trust the Harris County Constables to do so is, er, “just another day at the office,” certainly not a DISGRACE

Edited May 1, 2022 by mattyt36

[august948]

On 4/29/2022 at 6:59 PM, mattyt36 said:

Surely you're not THAT slow of a reader, Augie.  I'm interested in your thoughts . . . it's a key piece of evidence in judging just how cynical you are, buddy!

Got around to reading the article this weekend.  Was disappointed but not surprised that de-baathification was just an off-hand comment and not particularly meaningful.

[mattyt36]

22 hours ago, august948 said:

Got around to reading the article this weekend.  Was disappointed but not surprised that de-baathification was just an off-hand comment and not particularly meaningful.

Well I guess that’s ONE interpretation. (And here I thought you Baylor grads were all textualists.)

Tell me, how did you come to the conclusion that a candidate for US Senate was just “shooting the flurf” so to speak when fantasizing about dismantling the current system of government? Tell us, what was he REALLY saying there, Augie?

[august948]

4 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

Well I guess that’s ONE interpretation. (And here I thought you Baylor grads were all textualists.)

Tell me, how did you come to the conclusion that a candidate for US Senate was just “shooting the flurf” so to speak when fantasizing about dismantling the current system of government? Tell us, what was he REALLY saying there, Augie?

Textualism is the strict reading of a text without regard to any other considerations. 

In my experience, politicians are shooting the flurf until proven otherwise.  The general gist of the article, however, is that in certain conservative circles there's an opinion floating around that our system is about to collapse and speculation on how to react to that.  That's not quite the same as actively plotting to dismantle our current system. Total speculation on my part at the moment but there's likely been barroom talk about replacing our system with a socialist or communist system sometime in the past 100 years or so.  

I know this First Amendment stuff is scary in some circles but it's an essential part of our system. 

[mattyt36]

On 5/3/2022 at 3:48 PM, august948 said:

Textualism is the strict reading of a text without regard to any other considerations. 

Well aware of the definition of textualism.

On 5/3/2022 at 3:48 PM, august948 said:

The general gist of the article, however, is that in certain conservative circles there's an opinion floating around that our system is about to collapse and speculation on how to react to that.

"Certain conservative circles," which, might I point out, include the former president, who is the current de facto party head and likely 2024 nominee.

On 5/3/2022 at 3:48 PM, august948 said:

That's not quite the same as actively plotting to dismantle our current system.

The former president, with the support of many other Republicans, actively tried to overturn the 2020 election with no basis for doing so.  I'd say that's actively plotting to dismantle our current system.

On 5/3/2022 at 3:48 PM, august948 said:

Total speculation on my part

Yes, yes it is.  Willful ignorance, one might call it.

On 5/3/2022 at 3:48 PM, august948 said:

but there's likely been barroom talk about replacing our system with a socialist or communist system sometime in the past 100 years or so.  

And, while we're on the topic of history, let's consider how many times things started this way and didn't work out well in the end.  Barroom talk?  Yeah, a very famous putsch got started that way.  Not exactly the innocuous image I would want to conjure.

On 5/3/2022 at 3:48 PM, august948 said:

I know this First Amendment stuff is scary in some circles but it's an essential part of our system. 

Um, Augie, buddy, I have nothing against the First Amendment.  It used to be the case we would hold our leaders--elected or otherwise--to higher standards and expect them to exercise restraint, deference, and humility.  It's clear one party does not value that anymore ("But he fights!") and prefers a steamroller approach.  That should scare everyone because, at the end of the day, Mr Cynic, you know the politicians don't care about the citizens.  It's not a bargain we should make so freely while tossing caution to the wind.

Edited May 4, 2022 by mattyt36

[august948]

21 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

Well aware of the definition of textualism.

"Certain conservative circles," which, might I point out, include the former president, who is the current de facto party head and likely 2024 nominee.

The former president, with the support of many other Republicans, actively tried to overturn the 2020 election with no basis for doing so.  I'd say that's actively plotting to dismantle our current system.

Yes, yes it is.  Willful ignorance, one might call it.

And, while we're on the topic of history, let's consider how many times things started this way and didn't work out well in the end.  Barroom talk?  Yeah, a very famous putsch got started that way.  Not exactly the innocuous image I would want to conjure.

Um, Augie, buddy, I have nothing against the First Amendment.  It used to be the case we would hold our leaders--elected or otherwise--to higher standards and expect them to exercise restraint, deference, and humility.  It's clear one party does not value that anymore ("But he fights!") and prefers a steamroller approach.  That should scare everyone because, at the end of the day, Mr Cynic, you know the politicians don't care about the citizens.  It's not a bargain we should make so freely while tossing caution to the wind.

Well...we've had the discussion on probability vs possibility so I won't rehash that.  Historically speaking, the US has gone through periods where there was considerable political upheaval, including the Jacksonian era (mentioned in the article, btw).  While it may seem in contrast to the recent past this is different, I think a thorough reading of US history will show otherwise.

I will say that you are by far not the only one who is concerned more about the possibility of a tyrannical government coming into being than it's probability.  As you may have noted in the past two years especially there are many who view any mandate the government makes, however small and however justified, as an abridgement of their freedom.  Take comfort in the fact that many will resist other larger and more important abridgements of our freedom as well. 

At a much earlier time our founding fathers had this same concern, only as our country was young and our experiment as yet unproven the probability was much higher then than I would judge it to be now.  In their wisdom they gave us the Second Amendment as a safeguard against a tyrant, foreign or domestic.  If you are concerned about the overthrow of our system of government I would urge you exercise your Second Amendment rights and oppose any abridgement of them.  You can certainly believe with 100% probability that any tyrant, left or right, will first act to disarm the public that might oppose them.

Edited May 5, 2022 by august948

[Reefmonkey]

Thanks @Blue Dogs for bringing this issue to my attention, I was unaware of it until seeing your thread. I've always thought Crime Stoppers seemed like a good organization, but I had no idea about the fee that people on probation have to pay to them. Requiring a convict to pay court fees, or pay restitution to his victims, or pay a fee to the local parole division for the administration of his probabtion, I'm good with all that. Requiring him to pay a flat fee to a private nongovernmental  organization that had nothing to do with his case, that's ridiculous, I'm surprised it hasn't been challenged as an 8th Amendment violation. Again, thanks for bringing this issue to my attention.

Edited May 5, 2022 by Reefmonkey

[editor]

I've decided to close this thread.  It's more heat than light.  Sure, politics is often a little rambunctious.  But all I see here is partisanship and name-calling.  If that's your thing, try the comment sections of any newspaper web site.  HAIF is better than that.

Disagree?  Great!  E-mail me at editor@houstonarchitecture.com, and we'll talk about it.