Do you see what I mean, Grant. I post an article and someone disagrees. And, the sky is blue!
0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
White House press secretary Jay Carney said that while the government must take the Constitution into account, U.S. citizenship does not make a person immune from being targeted.
This is just plain wrong...and they want to take guns away?
0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Ok, so how are Americans safer in any town or city?
With this unfettered power, will the President send drones over Salem? Is there a chance you might be his next target while grilling some steaks, or taking a walk?
Attorney General Eric Holder, in a talk at Northwestern University Law School in March, endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans provided that the government determines such an individual poses “an imminent threat of violent attack.”
But the memo obtained by NBC News refers to a broader definition of imminence and specifically says the government is not required to have “clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”
Glenn Greenwald, a constitutional lawyer who writes about security and liberty for the British newspaper The Guardian, described the memo as “fundamentally misleading,” with a clinical tone that disguises “the radical and dangerous power it purports to authorize.”
“If you believe the president has the power to order U.S. citizens executed far from any battlefield with no charges or trial, then it’s truly hard to conceive of any asserted power you would find objectionable,” he wr
Legal experts expressed grave reservations Tuesday about an Obama administration memo concluding that the United States can order the killing of American citizens — with one saying the White House was acting as “judge, jury and executioner.”
The experts said that the memo, first obtained by NBC News, threatened constitutional rights and dangerously expanded the definition of national self-defense and of what constitutes an imminent attack.
“Anyone should be concerned when the president and his lawyers make up their own interpretation of the law or their own rules,” said Mary Ellen O’Connell, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame and an authority on international law and the use of force.
“This is a very, very dangerous thing that the president has done,” she added.
Is anyone really safe with this President in office?
0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Grant, exactly...during the election, I would state absolute fact and was questioned and called names because it didn't line up with the lies coming from the Obama campaign and the media. I was not stating my feelings but truth.
So when you say 2+2=4, it is stating fact and needs to be recognized as such. If we say we think Salem is no more dangerous wo fact it may be just our feelings.
1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
If my opinion is fact is it really opinion? If I said 2+2=4 and you disagreed would that make it "my opinion"?
This is my opinion but your first comment, quoting Roosevelt made your stance apparently. If it didn't, I'm not sure why you thought a quote telling people to speak softly and carry a gun was fitting.
1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
LOL...you're still on this?! You're clearly missing the most important word of the statement, which is "OR". Not to mention, I already explained what I meant. People like you are exactly the problem with this country, you wanna talk in circles and deviate from the fact that you have nothing to back up your stance on the topic at hand.
Not to mention, per capita numbers are based per 100,000. Since we have less than 15,000 residents, when you have ONE murder or ONE rape it makes the per 100,000 numbers look higher. No rape or murder or assault is good, but you're really splitting hairs to say the city is more dangerous when we're talking about incidents that number under 5.
Seems to me that looking at the data, there was a spike in property crimes. Not necessarily a growing trend, but a spike. No way to know if it'll be a trend for a few years anyways. But violent crime has remained the same or even decreased.
So I guess it depends what stat you want to look at, personally, when I think "more dangerous" the only number that matters much to me is violent crime. Either way, it's pretty clear that you can't make as strong of a case as some of you are making in favor of more dangerous. It's marginal if anything.
City-data**** crime index (higher means more crime, U.S. average = 319.1) 33.3(1999) 27.1(2000) 34.2(2001) 31.5(2002) 47.9(2003) 33.2(2004) 30.7(2005) 54.0(2006) 57.9(2007) 37.6(2008) 26.1(2009) 126.4(2010) 147.5(2011)
By these figures, it looks like crime has certainly jumped the last two years reported.
Read more: ***********city-data****/city/Salem-Ohio.html#ixzz2JwW8doHu
2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
LOL! Now I have anger management issues. Your brilliant psychoanalysis via print has determined that not only am I angry, I can't control it. No wonder you feel less safe..
Thank you Kozy for actually providing some real numbers. Those numbers certainly seem to show that the city is not more dangerous but we do need some older numbers to really be sure.
Posted some time back...Salem crime statistics report an overall upward trend in crime based on data from 12 years with violent crime decreasing and property crime increasing. Based on this trend, the crime rate in Salem for 2013 is expected to be higher than in 2010.
The city violent crime rate for Salem in 2010 was lower than the national violent crime rate average by 93.63% and the city property crime rate in Salem was lower than the national property crime rate average by 8.29%.
In 2010 the city violent crime rate in Salem was lower than the violent crime rate in Ohio by 91.85% and the city property crime rate in Salem was lower than the property crime rate in Ohio by 16.87%.
Couldn't find 1950, etc., but will keep on looking.
1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Grant has a point...all comments, including his and mine, are based upon our feelings and certain points of reason. What are the facts?
How many murders were there from 1950, per year until the latest report? How many drug busts? How many armed robberies? How many rapes and children molested? Those facts would answer the question and then no reason to get upset.
Ok, can anyone post that data? How about it Salem News?
I don't think anyone would argue the drugs are worse in town (since they've been flushed down from Mahoning County), but so far there hasn't been any direct correlation to that making it dangerous yet.
I don't feel less safe due to the fact that everyone in town does meth and pot, but if it goes unchecked for a few more years that could change, you never know.
And WatchDog, I have no idea how you can call someone blind when the only factual information you have to take your stance is to claim that one event creates a trend.
h t t p : / / w w w .ronpaul .c o m /on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/
Phoenix, I meant integration, not segregation.
It was forced integration, when blacks were asking to be separate but equal. Look at churches, where the government has no control. Still pretty segregated. It didn't accomplish its stated goals. But I'm sure people who think it did also believe the drug war is a success.
Ron Paul made a great speech about the Civil Rights Act.
******* ****ronpaul ****/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/
NotSocialist, in response to you LBJ comment, everyone knows that LBJ could be a bit of an a-hole, but he still did that right thing despite knowing that, by doing so, the Dems would lose the south.
LOL, the lame attacks on me are hilarious. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you fools anymore. But the debate is over unless we do have numbers:
"This whole debate can be ended quickly and accurately. For someone who is really interested, get the per capita stats from last year, 10 and 20 years ago. If the numbers are higher now, it's more dangerous."
You've just admitted that the entire notion that you've perpetuate since the conversation began is based on nothing but what you think is going on in your own head. Because you have no factual base to make your claim.
Louigi, I've lived in the south for well over 30 years and you're right there was more overt racism back then, but fortunately, thanks to integration, times have changed. I live in such a diverse and multicultural invironment now that I can't imagine anything different. I'm not suggesting racism is dead, we have a long way to go on that front, just that the south is far different then you remember it. As far as Salem being a more dangerous place to live in or visit, I can't speak for those of you who live there, but I haven't noticed a change when I'm fortunate enough to visit family.
It's been 30 years, but I was once stationed in the south. Bigots were out in the open and proud of it, actually sort nice. I always knew exactly who the morons were. In the military I new a lot of bigots, but many, after being forced to bunk beside, eat meals, and work closely with those of another race, had their eyes opened. They've reformed. The thing that irks me the most about living in this part of the country, the bigots are generally still in hiding. If you pay attention, they eventually reveal themselves.
I happen to know a lot of these former Dixiecrats, they call themselves Republicans now.
GrantMingus, " The Civil Rights Act is forced segregation." What? Oh and notSocialist, it was the southern democrats, Dixiecrats, who filibustered it, not the mainstream Democratic Party.
161 North Lincoln , Salem, OH 44460 |