It must be nice to live in a world so black and white. Send a postcard sometime

>> ^SeesThruYou:

Wait, wait... this guy was a drug addict or drug dealer? If he was a drug addict, they should have gotten him some help for his addiction. If he was a drug DEALER, then they didn't shoot him fast enough or use enough bullets. Drug dealers are not human beings and shouldn't have any fucking rights. I'm so sick of fucking pussy-ass liberal fags supporting criminal activity. "Waaahhhh! The big bad police are hurting all the drug dealers, rapists, and murderers!!! How dare they! Waaahhhhh!!! Where's my iPhone? I'm gunna call mommy Hillary!!!"

Wait, wait... this guy was a drug addict or drug dealer? If he was a drug addict, they should have gotten him some help for his addiction. If he was a drug DEALER, then they didn't shoot him fast enough or use enough bullets. Drug dealers are not human beings and shouldn't have any fucking rights. I'm so sick of fucking pussy-ass liberal fags supporting criminal activity. "Waaahhhh! The big bad police are hurting all the drug dealers, rapists, and murderers!!! How dare they! Waaahhhhh!!! Where's my iPhone? I'm gunna call mommy Hillary!!!"

>> ^xxovercastxx:
So you're very tolerant except of Muslims, foreigners and other cultures? Don't set that bar too high, now.
>> ^rougy:
Hard call for me. I'm all for tolerance, but I do remember a college professor forcing all of the guys to take off their ball caps in his class.
I also can't stand fundamentalist religions of any sort, especially the type that subjugates women, which I believe Islam does with these sorts of dress codes.
I'll also say that in western cultures, the concealment of the face is usually associated with criminal activity.
I kind of think...if a person wants to live their lives in such a backwards manner, how can they really expect to be treated otherwise in a modern, western, 21st century world?
I mean, fuck! A couple of Britons are going to jail in Dubai (I think) for kissing in public. Given that kind of social intolerance, I'm not going to get all worked up about this one just yet.



So my hat is douch-baggery and her face-hiding scarf is sacred?

I'm very tolerant. If you've looked at my words and trace them henceforth you might agree. But I have little patience for fundamentalists.

And I'll tell you why: because when the tables are turned, the fundamentalists will never afford the "secular world" the same tolerance that we afforded them.

I don't hate her. I hope she learns French, but more importantly I hope she learns how to take off that stupid fucking mask.

I do not apologize for that thought.

So you're very tolerant except of Muslims, foreigners and other cultures? Don't set that bar too high, now.
>> ^rougy:
Hard call for me. I'm all for tolerance, but I do remember a college professor forcing all of the guys to take off their ball caps in his class.
I also can't stand fundamentalist religions of any sort, especially the type that subjugates women, which I believe Islam does with these sorts of dress codes.
I'll also say that in western cultures, the concealment of the face is usually associated with criminal activity.
I kind of think...if a person wants to live their lives in such a backwards manner, how can they really expect to be treated otherwise in a modern, western, 21st century world?
I mean, fuck! A couple of Britons are going to jail in Dubai (I think) for kissing in public. Given that kind of social intolerance, I'm not going to get all worked up about this one just yet.

Hard call for me. I'm all for tolerance, but I do remember a college professor forcing all of the guys to take off their ball caps in his class.

I also can't stand fundamentalist religions of any sort, especially the type that subjugates women, which I believe Islam does with these sorts of dress codes.

I'll also say that in western cultures, the concealment of the face is usually associated with criminal activity.

I kind of think...if a person wants to live their lives in such a backwards manner, how can they really expect to be treated otherwise in a modern, western, 21st century world?

I mean, fuck! A couple of Britons are going to jail in Dubai (I think) for kissing in public. Given that kind of social intolerance, I'm not going to get all worked up about this one just yet.

>> ^NetRunner:
^ The topic under discussion was the bill that would strip ACORN of all Federal funding, because it's supposedly corrupt.
Now, pay attention when they talk about why bills of attainder are wrong. To paraphrase, it's to keep Congress from taking on issues that should be the purview of the judicial branch -- namely determining the guilt or innocence of the accused, and meting out punishments for the guilty.
The move to strip ACORN of Federal dollars is entirely about trying to use the legislature to pass judgment on alleged criminal activity, and dispense a punishment.
It's set up so that perhaps there's a way to narrowly define "punishment" so it doesn't count, but any rational person knows that's the entire point of the bill.


Wouldn't this apply to the amendment that Franken passed that dished out a punishment for KBR/Halliburton? Would that be considered a Bill of Attainder?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here and trying to discern the difference.

Also, I'd like to interpret Winstonfield_Pennypacker's post to what I saw it as:

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Now if only he could start practicing what he preaches and stop his party from stiff-arming the constitution(Attack aimed at the Democratic Party). Here is the conversion simplified.
Mr. Grayson: "Are bills of attainder bad?"
Mr. Brown: "This isn't a bill of attainder."
Mr. Grayson: "I asked you if bills of attainder were bad."
Mr. Brown: "This isn't a bill of attainder."
Mr. Grayson: "Answer my question. Aren't bills of attainder bad?"
Mr. Brown: "Sure - but this isn't a bill of attainder."(but it IS a Bill of Attainder)
I assume Mr. Grayson believes that if enough people hear him call something that isn't a bill of attainder a bill of attainder enough then someone may start believing it(He quoted and interpreted the constitution in a way that even I was able to interpret this bill as a Bill of Retainder, and I'm not a politician). Politicians have a pretty long history of using technicalities, buearucrat-speak, legalese, and other textual skullduggery to get around the Constitution to accomplish political objectives (this applies to both sides)(this also applies to your posts as well). Mr. Grayson is a pot calling a kettle black in that regard. Congress has been violating constitutional law for decades, and he's getting all testy now? (Personal attack on Grayson, expletive deleted). I guess that's what politicians do best though. Blame others for their own faults.


Take away your blatant lies and personal attacks and you're just re-iterating what was in the video without bringing any new information into light. NetRunner at least explains his comments and tries to inform the sift public what the hell the video is about. I'd like to ignore your comments, but it's amusing to watch you employ tactics to try and prove a point.

>> ^NetRunner:
^ The topic under discussion was the bill that would strip ACORN of all Federal funding, because it's supposedly corrupt.
Now, pay attention when they talk about why bills of attainder are wrong. To paraphrase, it's to keep Congress from taking on issues that should be the purview of the judicial branch -- namely determining the guilt or innocence of the accused, and meting out punishments for the guilty.
The move to strip ACORN of Federal dollars is entirely about trying to use the legislature to pass judgment on alleged criminal activity, and dispense a punishment.
It's set up so that perhaps there's a way to narrowly define "punishment" so it doesn't count, but any rational person knows that's the entire point of the bill.


how the hell did u decipher that?
ta

^ The topic under discussion was the bill that would strip ACORN of all Federal funding, because it's supposedly corrupt.

Now, pay attention when they talk about why bills of attainder are wrong. To paraphrase, it's to keep Congress from taking on issues that should be the purview of the judicial branch -- namely determining the guilt or innocence of the accused, and meting out punishments for the guilty.

The move to strip ACORN of Federal dollars is entirely about trying to use the legislature to pass judgment on alleged criminal activity, and dispense a punishment.

It's set up so that perhaps there's a way to narrowly define "punishment" so it doesn't count, but any rational person knows that's the entire point of the bill.

The vote was on an amendment to a Defense Department appropriations bill. The full text of the amendment can be found here, it's S10069, and S10070 only.

The text reads:

(a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

(b) The prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply with respect to employment contracts that may not be enforced in a court of the United States.

>> ^dana980:
Or people wouldn't be committing so many murders or crimes in general if we started fining them for it...... Brilliant argument demon_ix!!!

The argument isn't mine, but just to keep it going, there is a massive difference between actual price before the criminal activity and a theoretical fine after, should you get caught. I doubt anyone goes around with a loaded gun thinking "I'm gonna get caught later".

I doubt any sort of law that does anything to reduce use or availability of firearms will be passed in the US any time soon, but as an outside observer, the ease in which someone can get a gun and ammo to that gun is borderline insane. From a law-abiding citizen perspective.

>> ^ant:
If these high tech stuff are needed, then just call in the military!

The military doesn't work well with people, even in Canada if you transfer from the MP's(Military Police) to RCMP you still have to go back to the RCMP college for 3mo to make sure you don't crack people in the head, and criminals have a tendency of using the same hollowpoint, or better yet AP rounds which seems to be their new favorite. The problem is, the average citizen has problems with APC's rolling down the street to deal with the average 'crime problem'. Let me explain a bit more. The military is slow to respond to 'criminal' activity, it's not their area of expertise. But on average up here, only about 1:10 calls for service are actually criminal related.

In Canada land, specifically out in BC, the cops aren't out like that unless oh they need to be. However, they do seem to be having problems with the gangs and other lowlifes, well...AP rounds? Check, armor plated cars? Check. Oh did I mention that it's not the police using them but the criminals? It'll be a bit before we see our own high profile shootout like you did down in the US but it'll happen.

It's not the police that get pressed into using higher firepower, it's a response to criminal action. And with that it becomes an ongoing escalation. But you can't kick it down without people helping you either, too bad most people would rather turn a blind eye to everything these days. And I can give so many examples of that, it's not even funny.

What I'm hearing is a lot of shitbags with prior histories of drug abuse and criminal activity are using "stress" and PTSD as an excuse or a cop-out.

this is interesting and has me thinking about this: same sex rape is a side effect of captivity. it wasnt designed this way by the power structure. its happened through out time, it happens in nature. it just is.

but, have we designed our prison system (intentionally or unintentionally) to promote and perpetuate this? are they doing anything to curb it? (i honestly have no idea)

personally i think the prison system needs to be completely revamp or abolished. but im a complacent anarchist and realize noone agrees with me.

is fear of punishment really a deterent to crime for real criminals?
(id say a nonviolent drug offense is not a crime. but since it apparently is, i certainly think being locked up and made someones bitch for a few years is NOT an appropriate punishment, this needs to change. immediately)
im trying think if fear of the law has ever stopped me from doing something? i dont think so. my own sense of morality has. and fear of how the people who matter in my life will feel has. but not the law. (and i have done some horrible horrible things)
"oh judge, your damn laws, the good people dont need em and the bad people dont follow em" - ammon hennacy
thats a pretty good summation.

so, have we designed our prison system to promote and perpetuate rape? or are we just not creative enough to think of ways to prevent this? i definently get the feeling that society feels its an appropriate punishment for criminals, its even a huge joke.

as far as threats of buttrape being used to intimidate suspects by the legal system. i can answer this with a yes. absolutely it is. my exhusband was "threatened" with this, old "associates" have been threatened with this during interrogations. in different counties, districts, states.

and it happens in lady prison as well. i know girls who went to prison for drug offenses and had been raped with broomsticks, tampons, plungers, hair brushes, fists .. you name it.. by fellow inmates.

i feel like male on male rape is more disturbing to people than its female equivolent.

so... hmm.. yes i feel institutionalized rape is being used as a silent, omnious threat to criminals and society as a whole by the institution by the media and by the public itself and deter criminal activity.
this may not seem so terrible but think of non violent relatively benign things you can be imprisoned for. yep. its a problem.


as far as the situation of your intervention perhaps the threats from DA were inappropriate, but your mommy im sure was just trying to save your life and the DA was just trying to help his friend. hyperbolic, inappropriate.. it doesnt really matter when a moms trying to save her son.
In reply to this comment by Diogenes:
im not trying to condone the subject of this video at all...

but as an aside, do you think that male-on-male rape in our own western prisons is a form of 'corrective' punishment, or at least a very real threat in imposing proper comportment and coercing us to bide by current legislation?

as an example... in my college days i got in a bit of trouble with cocaine - not in the buying/selling/etc part, but in simply becoming addicted to it and having my family find out...

my mom was a well-known lawyer in a long-time relationship with a powerful district judge, and the district attorney was my grandfather's former law partner -- so together they held a drug intervention for me...

aside from the shame i felt, nothing made as strong an impression on me at that meeting as having all three: mom, judge and da... tell me how if i didn't quit and enter rehab, that they would catch me, throw the book at me, and have me locked up in the local prison - they went on to detail how a cute, slim white boy like myself would be anally and orally sodomized while being a ward of the state's penal system

now, i realize that my circumstance was rather unique... but do you think that the same sort of threats, even tauntings, are being used casually by our own police forces, states' attorneys, judges, and correctional officers with the 'strangers' they deal with in the course of their work?

if you can imagine that the above is possible and even probable, then haven't 'we' consentually institutionalized such barbarity as a likely punishment for those who may have fallen afoul of some state or federal statute?

i dunno... maybe im off-base -- but as ive grown older, and not gotten in any other trouble, i still look back on that situation and wonder if such threats were: A. hyperbolic or fallacious (i neither consort with law enforcement nor frequent criminal court cases, but i have seen/heard these sorts of threats made in the media), B. worthy of the trust i had in those individuals (and that we all should have in our government), and C. inappropriate in that applying illegal punishment for illegal behavior doesn't exactly send the right message

thoughts?

>> ^MikesHL13:
Awful. It's everywhere. Police everywhere are on a power trip. Sad.


I'm not entirely convinced that this sort of behaviour is on the rise, so much as awareness of it has. The ubiquity of cameras and Internet access is helping expose more criminal activity that was not as visible or recordable before.

I'm speaking as someone objectively trying to analyze the problem of crime. I'm not "afraid" of criminal activity per se, I just think one of the goals of civilized society is to reduce the amount of criminal activity in order to give people an ability to not have to fear criminal activity.

If someone robbed my house, I'm not sure what I'd feel. Probably in order: shocked, violated, angry, annoyed, and finally pity for the criminal whose life has brought them to the point where they could do such a thing.

If someone killed one of my dogs, I'd want their head on a pike, period.

That's why justice isn't supposed to be about what the victim wants. That should be factored into the process in some detached way, but the idea is that we dispense objective punishments for proscribed behaviors that society has reached some sense of consensus in establishing based on our legal system.

We punish murder harshly because people agree that it's a truly horrible thing to inflict on anyone. I doubt I could get the state to execute someone who hurt my dog, though, even though I'd probably demand it, loudly.

I don't think the "only" problem with crime is victims. Some crimes, like drunk driving, don't require that the infraction managed to link up with a specific victim before you can be charged/punished for it. Some behaviors are a threat to other people's safety, and should be against the law.

If a person proves that they are going to chronically be a danger to others, they need to be imprisoned.

I'd love for a system that focused more on trying to make victims whole than on putting holes in criminals. I do think both parties need healing in the aftermath of a crime, but it seems beyond the ability of us mortals to truly do that in all but the most harmless of situations.

I'm not really sure what you're suggesting we change in our justice system. Make criminal trials more like civil suits for damages? I don't think that would be an improvement.