Let’s not forget David Clarke is the same guy who ran an epic failure of a mayoral campaign in 2004, and he’s done nothing since then to prove a gubernatorial campaign would be anything but another epic failure.
|
|||||
|
|
8 comments to David Clarke for governor? |
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2007 - 2010 Blogging Blue - All Rights Reserved | Comment Policy
Powered by WordPress & the Atahualpa Theme by BytesForAll. Discuss on our WP Forum |
|||||
Let’s not forget the single biggest problem anyone with an ounce of respect for the Constitution should have. He proposed taking DNA samples of everyone arrested.
Not to mention, throwing all kinds of stones at the state for the DNA screwup while his own house glass house was just as bad.
I agree Locke, DNA samples just for being arrested is terribly wrong. And Doyle supporting it too? Ridiculous. What the hell is the Democratic party coming to?
Agreed. It’s a slippery slope when we start taking DNA from folks simply because they were arrested. Last time I checked, we still had some Constitutional rights to privacy.
Insofar as that it could be expanded, I get the slippery slope point. But most often, that charge is used when something itself might possibly be OK, but lends itself to expansion to a degree which is not. Because of presumption of innocence, taking DNA from someone when they’re arrested is itself, absolutely and unequivocally wrong.
A slippery slope to taking the DNA of everyone perhaps?
I think the term works, as I don’t think I would ever use the term slippery slope unless I was describing something that was at least wrong to some degree to begin with.
Get what I’m trying to say? I’m not good at communicating after 11pm.
Jim, that’s what I was referencing…sorry for not making it more clear. If we start taking DNA from anyone arrested of a crime, what’s next? The same logic being used to justify DNA being taken from anyone arrested by law enforcement could be used to justify taking DNA from every new baby born, or something along those lines.
I got it Zach. I think Locke was talking about the term “slippery slope” and I think we were debating if it was appropriate to use the term in this case. Pretty pointless, but I like that kind of discussion on occasion.
yeah – I’m pretty sure we’re all on the same page here & it’s just splitting hairs & semantics.
Like I said, it’s not that I don’t think slippery slope fits – just that common usage is “maybe this isn’t that bad, but it opens the door for bad things.” It opens the door for horrible things AND is itself bad.