Connecticut killings reopen debate on forcibly committing the mentally ill

[bripat9643]

Certain people are unable to adequately care for themselves or make competent decisions who may or may not be violent. Someone who is incompetent should be cared for in an institution. Bripat does not understand the Constitution or its role as a charter in crafting law.

I now understand why bripat does not want involuntary admission to mental institutions.

If they don't want to be in an institution, then what right does anyone have to force them into one?

Apparently you don't understand the concept called "freedom." That's where we make our own decisions rather than having some boot licking bureaucrat make them for us. The later concept is called "fascism."

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives government the authority to put anyone in an institution without a trial. So far you have utterly failed to provide any evidence of such. You haven't even tried.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because if one cannot make competent decisions, one becomes a burden, perhaps a dangerous one, to the public. "Fascism" is a term you do not understand obviously. You don't understand our Constitution, either.

Certain people are unable to adequately care for themselves or make competent decisions who may or may not be violent. Someone who is incompetent should be cared for in an institution. Bripat does not understand the Constitution or its role as a charter in crafting law.

I now understand why bripat does not want involuntary admission to mental institutions.

If they don't want to be in an institution, then what right does anyone have to force them into one?

Apparently you don't understand the concept called "freedom." That's where we make our own decisions rather than having some boot licking bureaucrat make them for us. The later concept is called "fascism."

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives government the authority to put anyone in an institution without a trial. So far you have utterly failed to provide any evidence of such. You haven't even tried.

 

[bripat9643]

Because if one cannot make competent decisions, one becomes a burden, perhaps a dangerous one, to the public.

People on welfare are already a burden to the public. Should we build work camps surrounded by barbed wire fences and put everyone who can't pay his or her bills into them?

"Fascism" is a term you do not understand obviously. You don't understand our Constitution, either.

I understand both quite well. That's what makes you so uncomfortable.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You understand very little, which makes you so defensive.

Strawman on the welfare comment, no sensible comparison there.

 

[bripat9643]

You understand very little, which makes you so defensive.

I'm not the slightest bit defensive, Fakey. You're making a fool out of yourself posting one stupid comment after another.

Strawman on the welfare comment, no sensible comparison there.

How is that a straw man? You used becoming a burden on the public as a justification for locking people up and throwing away the key. How can anyone argue that people on welfare are not a burden on the public?

Either it's a justification for locking people up or it isn't.

which is it, dumbfuck?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Connecticut killings reopen debate on forcibly committing the mentally ill

Committing them costs money. It's why Reagan and the Republicans threw them out into the street.

At the time it was called, "deinstitutionalization" and "dismantling the welfare state". I think this was the beginning of their current policy of "Let him die".

You would think that.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

You understand very little, which makes you so defensive.

I'm not the slightest bit defensive, Fakey. You're making a fool out of yourself posting one stupid comment after another.

Strawman on the welfare comment, no sensible comparison there.

How is that a straw man? You used becoming a burden on the public as a justification for locking people up and throwing away the key. How can anyone argue that people on welfare are not a burden on the public?

Either it's a justification for locking people up or it isn't.

which is it, dumbfuck?

Don't bother with Jake. He admitted the other day he's like 105 years old .. He's totally senile. Just the rantings of an old bitter man.

 

[JakeStarkey]

LGS won't post where I "admitted" anything because the welsher is caught out lying again.

She got her ass kicked by several left of center to right of center posters and has been whining every since.

 

[Noomi]

Certain people are unable to adequately care for themselves or make competent decisions who may or may not be violent. Someone who is incompetent should be cared for in an institution. Bripat does not understand the Constitution or its role as a charter in crafting law.

I now understand why bripat does not want involuntary admission to mental institutions.

If they don't want to be in an institution, then what right does anyone have to force them into one?

Apparently you don't understand the concept called "freedom." That's where we make our own decisions rather than having some boot licking bureaucrat make them for us. The later concept is called "fascism."

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives government the authority to put anyone in an institution without a trial. So far you have utterly failed to provide any evidence of such. You haven't even tried.

Then lets have all the severely mentally ill move next door to you and you can deal with it, because I sure as shit don't want some dangerous mental nutcase walking the streets.

 

[bripat9643]

Certain people are unable to adequately care for themselves or make competent decisions who may or may not be violent. Someone who is incompetent should be cared for in an institution. Bripat does not understand the Constitution or its role as a charter in crafting law.

I now understand why bripat does not want involuntary admission to mental institutions.

If they don't want to be in an institution, then what right does anyone have to force them into one?

Apparently you don't understand the concept called "freedom." That's where we make our own decisions rather than having some boot licking bureaucrat make them for us. The later concept is called "fascism."

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives government the authority to put anyone in an institution without a trial. So far you have utterly failed to provide any evidence of such. You haven't even tried.

Then lets have all the severely mentally ill move next door to you and you can deal with it, because I sure as shit don't want some dangerous mental nutcase walking the streets.

So if you can't force people into institutions, you want to tell them where they have to live?

You are totalitarian to the bone.

 

[Noomi]

I do not want a severely mentally ill person, who refuses to take their meds, living anywhere near me.

I have the right to remain safe from these potential timebombs, do I not?

 

[bripat9643]

I do not want a severely mentally ill person, who refuses to take their meds, living anywhere near me.

I have the right to remain safe from these potential timebombs, do I not?

No, you don't have the right to be free of any potential danger in your life, especially if it means locking people up who haven't committed any crime.

 

[Sarah G]

If that's the case, half of the Repubs on USMB will be locked safely away.

 

[bripat9643]

If that's the case, half of the Repubs on USMB will be locked safely away.

You'll be one of the first to get locked away.

 

[Papageorgio]

Certain people are unable to adequately care for themselves or make competent decisions who may or may not be violent. Someone who is incompetent should be cared for in an institution. Bripat does not understand the Constitution or its role as a charter in crafting law.

I now understand why bripat does not want involuntary admission to mental institutions.

If they don't want to be in an institution, then what right does anyone have to force them into one?

Apparently you don't understand the concept called "freedom." That's where we make our own decisions rather than having some boot licking bureaucrat make them for us. The later concept is called "fascism."

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives government the authority to put anyone in an institution without a trial. So far you have utterly failed to provide any evidence of such. You haven't even tried.

Then lets have all the severely mentally ill move next door to you and you can deal with it, because I sure as shit don't want some dangerous mental nutcase walking the streets.

Your lack of sympathy and understanding of mental disorders is very common. Sad, but common. The reality is people with mental disorders are far less likely to hurt someone than someone such as yourself, however bigotry is easier.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Show us the law, subject to the Constitution, that prevents incarcerating the mentally ill who cannot competently take care of themselves.

I do not want a severely mentally ill person, who refuses to take their meds, living anywhere near me.

I have the right to remain safe from these potential timebombs, do I not?

No, you don't have the right to be free of any potential danger in your life, especially if it means locking people up who haven't committed any crime.

 

[bripat9643]

Show us the law, subject to the Constitution, that prevents incarcerating the mentally ill who cannot competently take care of themselves.

I do not want a severely mentally ill person, who refuses to take their meds, living anywhere near me.

I have the right to remain safe from these potential timebombs, do I not?

No, you don't have the right to be free of any potential danger in your life, especially if it means locking people up who haven't committed any crime.

I already did, moron. I refer you to the Fifth and 14th Amendments.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, bripat, you are not the authority. Show us the law, using your arguments for the 5th and 14th, that supports your conclusion.

You can't, you fail, nothing new.

Libertarianism is so childish.