- Aug 18, 2012
- 24,999
- 21,068
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Non-responsive. . .
Should the feds take over your home town if someone is assaulted?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Non-responsive. . .
My "home town" isn't under Federal management. DC is, and has been since it's creation. It has a mayor, a council, and other government that was set up by a literal act of congress, but still it's the Federal government's domain. If This is a problem, then perhaps there should be a constitutional amendment to abolish DC and let it become a regular city.Should the feds take over your home town if someone is assaulted?
My "home town" isn't under Federal management. DC is, and has been since it's creation. It has a mayor, a council, and other government that was set up by a literal act of congress, but still it's the Federal government's domain. If This is a problem, then perhaps there should be a constitutional amendment to abolish DC and let it become a regular city.
Not to mention the issue of being in favor of "soft on crime."My "home town" isn't under Federal management. DC is, and has been since it's creation. It has a mayor, a council, and other government that was set up by a literal act of congress, but still it's the Federal government's domain. If This is a problem, then perhaps there should be a constitutional amendment to abolish DC and let it become a regular city.
Nor is it our job to do so.I understand. Your town has a local police department yes?
DC has a police department and to date, no one in this thread has demonstrated the rational for invoking a "federal takeover."
Six hundred and fifty-three.How many should get mugged before intervention is deemed necessary?
Is it legal?It's the government's job to use our tax dollars responsibly.
I submit that diverting federal resources from multiple agencies (FBI, DEA, ATF and 12 other agencies) to address a carjacking in D.C. is NOT a responsible use of our tax dollars.
Typical DOGE.It's the government's job to use our tax dollars responsibly.
I submit that diverting federal resources from multiple agencies (FBI, DEA, ATF and 12 other agencies) to address a carjacking in D.C. is NOT a responsible use of our tax dollars.
This is a good sign that your question was rhetorical only, and wing2000's response was not a dodge.Great! . . .now that's settled. . .nothing to argue about it anymore.
I think the incredulity of the answer should have been a pretty obvious answer. And calling someone else on "dodging" is a bit of a projection on your part. But you could make that go away by answering the question, because quite honestly, your question did not in any way seem like a genuine one.Non-responsive. . .and quite a revealing "dodge."
Wing2000?I understand. Your town has a local police department yes?
DC has a police department and to date, no one in this thread has demonstrated the rational for invoking a "federal takeover."
Conservatives are notorious for "creating problems" so they can present themselves as the solution to it.That’s my point. This seems staged.