One thing is for sure the bail should not be too high for this man because that would be prohibitive and unfair based on his means.
Need to let him out until convicted/charged.
Some Red State/Blue State Indicia
- Thread starter nsacpi
- Start date
One thing is for sure the bail should not be too high for this man because that would be prohibitive and unfair based on his means.
Need to let him out until convicted/charged.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
I’m in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts for the weekend. Last time I was here I said Boston was the city I would pick if I had to live in a city. Beautiful place, surrounded by water, so much history, friendly people, etc.
This time it’s no less of any of those things, but I don’t think it would top my list anymore. Legalized marijuana has taken over and it’s easy to walk a few blocks and get a second hand buzz. I swear one of my kids has had the munchies for the past two days.
I’m personally against legalization for a few reasons and I feel confident that I’ll continue to be shown correct on that years from now. But my gosh, if you’re going to legalize it, legalize it at home and inside businesses that approve it. Walking through Boston Common with groups of kids sitting in the grass while smoking grass really drags the feel of the whole place down.
This time it’s no less of any of those things, but I don’t think it would top my list anymore. Legalized marijuana has taken over and it’s easy to walk a few blocks and get a second hand buzz. I swear one of my kids has had the munchies for the past two days.
I’m personally against legalization for a few reasons and I feel confident that I’ll continue to be shown correct on that years from now. But my gosh, if you’re going to legalize it, legalize it at home and inside businesses that approve it. Walking through Boston Common with groups of kids sitting in the grass while smoking grass really drags the feel of the whole place down.
Yup - Only degenerates think it should be legal or people that don't consider the nature of peoples actions once its legal.
I go on and off now smoking but I've never had issues getting it or enjoying in the comforts of my home.
Why do we need anything to change? Its all very suspect.
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/10/10/clayton-county-georgia-trump-protectionism/
The federal government, vain about its successes running businesses (e.g., Amtrak; oh, well), has recently plunged into “industrial policy.” The government of Clayton County, Georgia, also enjoys economic planning.
If its opposition to Khalilah Few succeeds, she, a single mother with a teenage son, will have lost much of her savings, and her opportunity for financial security. She will be collateral damage from her local government’s vision of “smart growth.” She is, however, represented by the libertarian litigators of the Institute for Justice. Clayton County has met its match.
Few graduated from beauty school in 2012 and in 2023 opened her own salon. Seeking to relocate, she invested more than $30,000 in renovating and renting a space that had previously been a barbershop. When in May this year she applied for a permit, she assumed approval would be perfunctory.
In July, however, she was denied a permit for two reasons, one unintelligible, the other unconstitutional. The former was that her salon would be incompatible with the county’s vision of “smart growth.” Whatever this vacuous phrase denotes is, the county thinks, compatible with a dry cleaner, a watch repair shop and a pet groomer opening in the same area without needing permits. The county’s unconstitutional reason was that Few’s salon would create “saturation”: There are several other salons within a five-mile radius. This rationale is pure protectionism, a domestic version of a perennial rationale for national tariffs.
Clayton County might seem to be mimicking the Trump administration’s insinuation of the national government into the operations of large corporations (U.S. Steel, Intel, Nvidia, MP Materials, etc.). Perhaps, however, the administration’s “industrial policy” — “smart growth” as envisioned and enforced by supposedly prescient bureaucrats — should be seen as mimicking familiar practices of local governments, but on a grander scale.
Familiar, but incompatible with the Constitution, properly construed. For years, libertarian litigators have been combating domestic protectionism.
For example, a decade ago, such litigators opposed Kentucky’s “certificate of necessity” regulation that said: If you want to start or expand a moving company, you must first prove that existing moving companies are “inadequate,” and that the proposed new service “is or will be required by the present or future public convenience and necessity.”
Litigators argued that this violated the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the law because it is a “competitor’s veto,” favoring existing companies over prospective rivals. And they said crucial terms in the law were unconstitutionally vague. “Required” by what circumstances? How far into the fog of the “future” must you peer?
—————
Serves as today’s daily reminder that I don’t hate government enough
The federal government, vain about its successes running businesses (e.g., Amtrak; oh, well), has recently plunged into “industrial policy.” The government of Clayton County, Georgia, also enjoys economic planning.
If its opposition to Khalilah Few succeeds, she, a single mother with a teenage son, will have lost much of her savings, and her opportunity for financial security. She will be collateral damage from her local government’s vision of “smart growth.” She is, however, represented by the libertarian litigators of the Institute for Justice. Clayton County has met its match.
Few graduated from beauty school in 2012 and in 2023 opened her own salon. Seeking to relocate, she invested more than $30,000 in renovating and renting a space that had previously been a barbershop. When in May this year she applied for a permit, she assumed approval would be perfunctory.
In July, however, she was denied a permit for two reasons, one unintelligible, the other unconstitutional. The former was that her salon would be incompatible with the county’s vision of “smart growth.” Whatever this vacuous phrase denotes is, the county thinks, compatible with a dry cleaner, a watch repair shop and a pet groomer opening in the same area without needing permits. The county’s unconstitutional reason was that Few’s salon would create “saturation”: There are several other salons within a five-mile radius. This rationale is pure protectionism, a domestic version of a perennial rationale for national tariffs.
Clayton County might seem to be mimicking the Trump administration’s insinuation of the national government into the operations of large corporations (U.S. Steel, Intel, Nvidia, MP Materials, etc.). Perhaps, however, the administration’s “industrial policy” — “smart growth” as envisioned and enforced by supposedly prescient bureaucrats — should be seen as mimicking familiar practices of local governments, but on a grander scale.
Familiar, but incompatible with the Constitution, properly construed. For years, libertarian litigators have been combating domestic protectionism.
For example, a decade ago, such litigators opposed Kentucky’s “certificate of necessity” regulation that said: If you want to start or expand a moving company, you must first prove that existing moving companies are “inadequate,” and that the proposed new service “is or will be required by the present or future public convenience and necessity.”
Litigators argued that this violated the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the law because it is a “competitor’s veto,” favoring existing companies over prospective rivals. And they said crucial terms in the law were unconstitutionally vague. “Required” by what circumstances? How far into the fog of the “future” must you peer?
—————
Serves as today’s daily reminder that I don’t hate government enough
Can't imagine having to work in the city while using public transit.
Fortunately, when I have to go into the HQ office its just the LIRR to grand central and then a walk uptown.
Seems we are going to have swing even more violently to the left until the inevitable Nazi crackdown to get the city back to livable again.
I will say though - Going on occasion or at night to see a show/dinner is still fantastic.
sturg33
I
The uncomfortable truth is that if we found a way to keep guns out of the hands of black people, the "gun problem" would not exist anymore
More and more are waking up to this
Tapate50
Well-known member
Homecoming at HBCUs is a bloodbath. Staggering numbers
And reasonable person knows the issues with the country and if we had the courage to address them and not worry about being called racist we could make American safe again.
acesfull86
Well-known member
What’s your proposal…what exactly does MAGA want to do here, if the rest of us had “the courage”
I'm excited to see where this one goes.
Last edited:
Racial profiling in all policing as stated policy is the first thing that would clean a lot of this up. I don’t think most of these guns purchased are done so legally so getting the gun runners off the street as well as drug dealers would go a long way.
Others are a bit more radical but I’d like to see the result over five years of the profiling to see if anything else needs to be done.
acesfull86
Well-known member
I love how step one is violating the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, and then the plan gets "more radical," LOL