Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
No, it's not the same. It's not the same at all. If you'd like for the POTUS and the Justice Department to investigate such things, then great. I'm all for it.
I disagree that the POTUS is the top cop, since there's nothing in the US Constitution that states it is his responsibility to be a police officer. He is the commander in chief, not the police chief. I don't know what fucked up interpretation of the US Constitution you read.
But, to INDIVIDUALLY discuss, a SINGLE situation, a PERSONAL friend of the POTUS, on a LOCAL issue, it is NOT representative of how treatment happens on a NATIONAL level.
If you think it is a reflection NATIONALLY, it's a fucked up twisted and bent fun house mirror you're using.
|
You know what, Cynthetiq, you seem to take an antagonistic stance with my posts because we disagree on certain things. It's cool to have differing opinions and all that, but try using a civil tone when debating an issue, or while presenting your point of view. Thank you.
Re: top cop reference -- the POTUS appoints an Attorney General, who is his representative in all matters legal (his top cop), so by inference he is the chief law enforcement (top cop) official in the US.
Quote:
The United States Attorney General is the head of the United States Department of Justice (see 28 U.S.C. § 503) concerned with legal affairs and is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States government. The Attorney General is considered to be the chief lawyer of the U.S. government. The Attorney General serves as a member of the President's Cabinet, but is the only cabinet department head who is not given the title Secretary, besides the now defunct Postmaster General.
The Attorney General is nominated by the President of the United States and takes office after confirmation by the United States Senate. He or she serves at the pleasure of the President and can be removed by the President at any time....
|
If you want to split hairs over that, then I'll leave you to that. I don't read a "fucked up interpretation of the US Constitution" no more than I would assume that you do based upon your vituperative response.
The racial divide is a national issue, whether or not you wish to acknowledge that this is so. It doesn't matter which side of the canyon you stand on, the fact that there is a canyon should be cause for concern.
IMO, the POTUS could have excused himself from commenting on the issue citing his PERSONAL friendship and therefore a possible conflict of interest, and referred it to his top cop representative, Eric Holder.
President Obama appears to be more than capable of multitasking, so the issues that are at the top of your list (health care, economic recovery, etc) can be addressed without the President having to don blinders to forcibly direct his attention to such matters. Besides, he has appointed what he believes to be more than capable people to help him wade through this country's messes in order to address and/or resolve
all issues that threaten the peace and security of the nation.
We will have to civilly agree to disagree on this one.