This. If you are a sex offender or killed somebody, you should get your rights back. For non-violent drug offences as soon as you are out, for theft and other crimes against other people, perhaps a period of time after if you got off early, but otherwise, there's no reason to hold off rights...

I think everyone except violent/sex offenders should get their voting rights back after completing the sentence... If you have paid your debt to society you should get to vote.

I look at it this way....in the time they would likely serve in prison for aggravated rape and kidnapping, (that time likely made much longer due to the racial components), the likelihood they would both be raped themselves nears 100% (that likelihood also higher due to the racial components, racial revenge rape), assuming they survive. Add to that the 15+- years in prison and lifelong stigma of being a class 1 sex offender. Considering all that, the rape accusation carries far worse consequences than a one evening kidnapping and rape would, although both are excessively egregious. Also, keep in mind that every false accusation effects the likelihood of successfully prosecuting real rapists. I have no stats about that, but I would guess easily 5 rapists go free for every proven false accusation....to pull a number right from my ass. The consequences of the false accusations can easily be the more serious of the two, imo, when all is considered.

I see your point and agree, and I think there should be stringent requirements to prove an accusation was false before pursuing prosecution, but in cases where there's no question like this one, convict and send a strong message with a long....long sentence, not one year (in most places meaning no prison, local jail, and probably under 1/4 of that time actually served since it's considered non violent).
And yes, major compensation is in order. This accusation will follow and haunt them for life, even though it was retracted.

I agree, this is an outlier, but it's a devastating, life altering crime and needs to be treated as such when it's proven. Because rape is much more prevalent than false rape charges is not an excuse to ignore this or in any way hinder aggressively prosecuting it, in my mind it's a reason to go after it harder.

Edit:also, I'm completely irrational in my hatred of liars.

Wow, I really must be getting old. Why is society becoming so horrified by physical violence? If you grab someone like this, getting punched out is not an escalation of violence, but an appropriate deterrent.

As for between men and women, I think this is a situation where you have to be willing to offend the extreme feminists by observing that men and women although equal, are also different. A 115lb women assaulted by a 170lb man warrants a different response than a 170lb man assaulted by a 115lb woman. IMO, the larger stronger man can more easily afford to warn the woman to not repeat the offence prior to a physical response. It also seems to me that society disagrees and thinks they should be considered and handled identically, but I think society has that wrong.

It's a gym, not a meditation and relaxation center. Get some earplugs if noise offends you.

I'm less familiar with American demographics, but I agree with the overall principal. Here in Canada we have IMO an even more severe segregation and unequal opportunity for Aboriginal peoples. It's severe enough up here though that not only are communities segregated by living on reserves with their own separate schools, but we have separate school divisions, and even their reporting and funding lines are different from all other schools.

That adds up to an enormous amount of differential treatment. Replacing that with equal opportunity though is much more desirable than 'waiting' till the school system has already failed kids and then 'lowering the bar' in one way or another to help them get into university.

In Canada I think our supreme court has done as at least 1 disservice greater than you guys though in making race a required consideration in sentencing. The appropriate section of sentencing:
"In sentencing an aboriginal offender, the judge must consider: (a) the unique systemic or background factors which may have played a part in bringing the particular aboriginal offender before the courts; and (b) the types of sentencing procedures and sanctions which may be appropriate in the circumstances for the offender because of his or her particular aboriginal heritage or connection."
The goal is to address the over-representation of aboriginal people in prisons. The effect however, is ultimately discriminatory as well. Before you dismiss the discrimination against whites as ok because it balances things out as is the 'goal', that's not the only affect. Another problem in Canada is the over-representation of Aboriginal peoples as the victims of crime, because most violent crime is between parties that are related. So on the whole crimes committed against Aboriginal people will on average be sentenced more leniently...

Failing to address the real underlying unequal opportunity can't corrected by more inequality later to balance the scales. In Canada, our attempt at it are too lesson the sentencing of people with unequal backgrounds, but the expense of victims that also faced those same unequal backgrounds...

And that 'corrective' inequality is also creating similar resentment amongst white people here too. People don't like their kids not getting into a school of choice potentially because of a race based distinction, but they like it even less to see a crime committed against them treated more leniently because of race.

This is Playa Montesinos in downtown Santo Domingo. On Google Earth there is a cruise ship docked less than a kilometer from this beach. Apparently this happens after heavy rains which ties in with studies that show that 90-95% of all the plastic in the oceans comes from 10 rivers, 2 in Africa and 8 in Asia with China being the worst offender. It seems that as third world economies improve, their taste for western throwaway culture increases without a corresponding increase in disposal and recycling infrastructure. I've read somewhere that even where they have landfills they're often located near rivers where rains and floods flush the landfill and allow it to accept more trash.

*quality.
Who's in charge of the Forestry Service?
If they don't have jurisdiction or have authority to make arrests, how is it they are allowed to pull guns at all. What are those offending not being charged?

Bob, I'll try to ignore your having just being an ignorant douchbag who rudely dismissed those with far more knowledge and personal experience than you possess, simply because they disagreed with your non- medically based, non-scientific based, thoughtless, inhumane political position and I'll try a different tact.....

How is it that, in 2018, you are advocating slavery more foul than the African slave trade....yes, slavery.

Forcing one person to fulfill all the bodily functions of another, brain dead potential "person" (and make no mistake, a blastocyst is not a person, but for sake of argument and your limited understanding capabilities I'll let you claim it is one this one time)....that's Mengele level inhumanity and slavery.

You claim to believe in individual liberties over vague social responsibility....except when you don't.

Forcing one person to physically support another is so far to the left of full socialism you seem to think it went all the way around to the right. It doesn't work that way.
To add the typical right wing slippery slope argument, if the government can force one person to be life support for another potential person, they can force healthy people to give up organs to the unhealthy, or be consigned to hospitals to be used as human dialysis and so forth.
Until those cells can and have survived on their own without support, and can and have functioned as a mammal (meaning breathed, circulated body fluids, and consumed and evacuated foodstuffs) they have not reached "living human" status, and even if you can't grasp that fact, at no point can there be a requirement that another person acts as their sentient intensive care unit without reinstating legal slavery.

Why do you advocate slavery?

When are you donating your kidney and partial liver, and your children's? If you aren't, by your logic you're at least a double murderer and so are they. Why should I or anyone take morality advice from a double murderer?

Design a procedure where the offending not yet human can be safely removed without any (or at least less than an abortion would cause) risk to the mother, but survive on it's own without an incubator-slave, then come back and we'll talk.... until then forced incubation and forced birth is monstrously draconian socialism of a kind even Mengele would turn away from in disgust.

Edit: I came up with an argument I think might change your mind....how many baby Newtboys would you force on the planet before you decided abortion should be mandatory in some cases?

Slavery has ZERO impact to today's society.


Everyone has the opportunity to become what ever one desires.
To hang on to the past is nothing more than a self inflicted wound.

My GGgrandfather was a laborer.
GFather was a plumber.
Dad was first to finish HS.
I was able to finish college.


Each generation trying to make the next a little better.

Also Cubans flooding Florida over last fifty years doing better than black counterparts

Illegals traveling thousand of miles for a chance of making a better life for themselves and family.

Yet you give blacks a pass to hang onto the crutch of the past.

Micro aggression! Really MICRO. If you are offended by micro anything then you are too thin skinned.

Hi Sagemind,

I'm not offended by your questions or statements. I am guessing you didn't watch much of the video or else you wouldn't be saying all of these prophecies are based on an eclipse. It doesn't a do whole lot for your argument when you skim the video and then mischaracterize the content. This is the atheist MO; come to a premature conclusion based on incomplete information in a rush to falsify the data. Having only a superficial understanding of the subject matter, how would you expect to convince anyone of your position?

The sun being darkened is one of literally dozens (maybe hundreds) of signs that indicate the Day of the Lord, which this video covers. The Jews, and Christians aren't just looking for an eclipse, they are looking at world events, cultural conditions, and a myriad of other things which confirm these prophecies. Without the dozens of other accompanying signs, a simple eclipse wouldn't have any weight in fulfilling these prophecies. The Jewish culture knew about eclipses, that isn't what this is talking about.

This is a very indepth subject. For example, Sir Issac Newton wrote on bible prophecy extensively and said that he considered his work on prophecy more important than his work on mathematics. Based on his studies he corrected predicted when the Jews would return to their homeland. Do you think he just guessed? Read his writings. There is something there a little deeper than atheist talking points.

You've also mischaracterized my faith. I don't believe in God because I was scared and I needed something to lean on. I believe in God because of personal revelation; God revealed Himself to me and showed me that Jesus is the Messiah and the bible is His book. I was content to be a secular agnostic and I wasn't afraid of my death. God wasn't content with that and I responded to His call.

Your oversimplication of faith proves that you don't know a lot about it, or why Christians believe what they believe. I don't think that is very intelligent to dismiss something that you really don't understand. I think your rejection of my faith is mostly based on cherry picking information which has been spoonfed to you by atheist sources instead of a sincere investigation which weighed both sides instead of just one. I would love for you to prove me wrong here.

Have you ever considered giving the claims of Christianity a chance by asking Jesus Christ to reveal Himself to you? Either He is alive and can hear you, or He isn't. If He did give you a sign, would you be willing to follow it?

Personally, I find the question itself offensive.

Now I'm not the type of person who gets offended, but the question is set up in a way that just plain sounds degrading to any friend you may know. It's setting the friend up to be there purely because they are black - the token black friend.

I just think there is a much better way to have phrased the question.

I wonder if it would be legal to use dye packs like banks use. That way you could mark the offenders and everyone would know they were up to no good.

I don't really dislike or get offended by any of the interviewee's thoughts here, but the older gentleman is very well reasoned, logical, and cool about it while also being conscious about the potential for misunderstandings that can be avoided if we know a little history.