Do you Care if James Holmes is "Insane"

All politicians do that , same thing as the Patriot Act

 

Just seems more opportunistic when the other side does it. Bush gave us 2 wars the same way.

 

True story. Most people don't view it that way though. In their minds the politician who aligns with their views are "right" while those who don't are "trying to push an agenda."

 

congress authorizes war.

just sayin'.

 

We wouldn't have gone to war without the Bush/Cheney war machine making it top priority and bringing it to a vote.

Just sayin'

 

correct

congress authorizes war.

"Bush/Cheney war machine" What does that make President Obama?...oh yeah, that's right...he couldn't get congress to go along with ending war. even when he had both houses and a super majority in the Senate.

btw...I believe the Iraq war was a mistake...and Afghanistan is turning into Vietnam 2.0.

however...we live in a representive republic. at any time during the past decade, the people could have pressured their representives in congress to end war.

btw #2...I'm all for immediate withdraw. and an immediate rethinking of all foreign aid programs.

 

^

 

Larry

Too many senators on both sides with defense money flooding their states to pull out like we want. At least Obama wants out.

Either way Bush used a tragedy to make an opportunity. Do you agree? That was the context.

 

Institutionalizing the clinically insane may be good for the safety of the citizens.

the move away from incarceration may have proven to be more harmful than politically correct.

 

In order to incarcerate the clinically insane , you would first need to determine if someone is untreatabley mentally ill versus just someone with mental illness , this would require additional efforts and funding in mental health , but there doesn't seem to be much of an appetite to increase funding in this area , would you not agree ?

 

A lot of things are being said to be good for the safety of the citizens.

Constitutional and politically correct are sometimes the same thing.

 

I do not agree with the "tragedy for opportunity" position in the case of President Bush & Iraq.

His position was based on intell. and congress agreed. if Bush and congress did not act, and WMD's got in the wrong hands...or worse, used in an attack...he (Pres Bush) and congress would have been critized for not acting.

not a position I would want to be in.

and it's easy for me now to see Iraq was a mistake. In the days/months and couple years after 9-11...hard decisions had to be made. I don't agree with all of them. and it's the job of the congress...as representatives of the people...to make necessary adjustments to those decisions.

that's our system.

 

interesting...

have an example?

 

^^

 

I do not know if funding is the issue. When the system changed, I don't think funding was an issue. As I posted...it became politically incorrect to have your crazy uncle incarcerated, so the clinical psychologists lost their authority to do so.

 

Institutionalizing citizens in mass against their will, based on broad public safety concerns and loose psychological testing methodology.

 

I agree with it being Vietnam 2.0, and the withdrawal, and rethinking.
What we needed to do from the start of the war was let the military go in and do its thing withou people trying to be PC.
If we weren't PC, and let the military get done what it needed to we could have saved lives.

 

I fail to see the constitutional referance.

and political correctness promoted the opposite.

so, in this example...I do not see: Constitutional and politically correct are sometimes the same thing.

 

In order to go back to incarcerating mentally ill people , like the good ole days , funding would need to be increased beyond CURRENT levels to assess which people with mental illness required incarceration and which people with mental illness were just that , people with mental illness and there does not seem to be much of an appetite by the taxpayer to increase funding for healthcare and in particular mental healthcare , this is the catch 22 of the " just lock them up " arguement

 

So it's not Constitutional to expect not to be institutionalized against your will because you think somebody should be?