Sir Bandelot
-
Posts
4,053 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Sir Bandelot
-
-
You can't control what substances people choose to use/abuse, legal or illegal.
So forget that.
Instead focus on protecting the public from gangs with guns.
Put them out of business.
Take the drug trade away from them.
Legalize drugs.
More likely none of this is possible, since the level of corruption in our society is so pervasive.
-
A great many legal, over-the-counter products are nasty if used incorrectly.
It's only when things become a problem that action has to be taken. There's no law against inhaling petroleum fumes, for example. But hardly anyone does it, and there's no "black market".
There has to be at least some regulation or restriction, if anything to protect the public. These potheads making claims that marijuana is harmless need to be countered, lest naive people believe them.
-
it's a huge problem, our entire justicesystem would be a complete failure if we executed even a single innocent person...and I'm sure it's happened in the past...at least now we can give someone their lives back when we screw up...
I don't think DNA can ever be wrong only the people doing the testing... a negative match.DNA can absolutely clear someone but a postive DNA match isn't always proof of guilt...
It has happened in the past. But even spending 27 years in jail only to find out the accused was innocent, their lives are ruined.
Off topic anyway.
-
You seem to be solidly behind Mitt... I have to ask: do you support what he currently says stands for, or what he said he supported during the Republican primaries?
Oooh... ouch!
-
but again Milgaard and a number of others were considered "real killers" too, only to have DNA and new trials clear them, the death penalty makes mistakes final...
I won't say it's not a problem. Has DNA evidence ever been wrong?
-
sure, but how do you separate corruption from ordinary incompetence...
Like the examples you cited?
-
ya manson is probable guilty but we can’t extend that to everyone, emotion clouds good judgement...
We should never allow emotion to could our judgement, especially the court of public opinion but the real problem is, corruption. How many cases have we seen with trumped up evidence? Those people should be heavily punished, with incarceration.
But the real killers, Olsen, Bernardo, Homolka, Williams, should not be kept alive IMO. Although, it comes down to a question of should the state have the right to take a life, for me it's a trade off between the rights if the individual and the rights of the people to peace and security.
-
Yup, we extend our social services, health care, free legal reps, and even a mat to pray on regardless of any hate felt for us. well, we USED TO. Now we have a new government.
Which government is new?
-
But my conjecture has a rational basis: i.e. if the number of users increases (which appears to be the case) then the number of addicts must also increase since the number of people with the addict gene stays the same.
The people who want to dispute that assertion must provide data or at least a plausible counter argument for why the number of addicts could possibly decrease given what we know about the causes of addiction.
It's true; but likewise there WILL be some who no longer fear reprisal and are therefore wiling to come out. I personally don't condone legalization. Decrim, yes but I would want to see more treatment programs available. This would cost more, but is offset by the cost savings avoiding incarceration. Beyond that, we take some of the pressure off jails. More room for bad criminals. And taking control away from organized crime does appeal to me. The economic argument also appeals to me, in this time of fiscal restraint.
-
everyone is deserving of human rights even the undeserving...
Not so sure after seeing Manson on TV recently, and his accomplices. Somehow keeping them alive and in the media year after year, hearing about their crimes and their attitudes after years in prison. doesn't satisfy me that they are being adequately punished, and that the public conscience is undisturbed.
-
This could actually support my claim that the number of addicts is increasing. You are simply *assuming* that the increase is because existing untreated addicts are getting treatment instead of new addicts needing treatment.
It 'could', but until you provide some hard data this is conjecture as well.
It is pretty much expected that there will be increases in both demographics, new users, and old users coming out. How much, falls under the domain on sociologists.
-
There's always gonna be some waste, no matter what. And we're at the point now where we've already made a lot of cutbacks. Further cuts will only cause undue suffering. There's really not a lot of "fat" left to be trimmed from the system. Cuts are no longer the answer, lest we enter into the absurd situation where we as taxpayers are shelling out more than we take home, and get no services for it. Further cuts, those of any real substance (not... coffee breaks and daycare) will only go to the bone.
Our economic "system" has a terminal illness. Some say it's already dead but we refuse to acknowledge it, and try to revive the corpse by dumping vast sums of emergency funding to business and banks deemed to important to fail. We took the public money and gave it to private businesses. And now you people come back looking for billions in cuts... realizing the rescue efforts have failed, economy is dead. The soviet union collapsed and reformed itself, but the same disease is within us.
-
This spectacle is mostly the fault of the spectators because in a democracy the people are responsible for the actions of their government, and especially when they condone or allow their indifference to fan it's criminal actions.
Yes, and it's good to see the system work that way. Question is, will we learn our lesson after paying out? No! That's why the real criminals keep getting away with it, time and time again. Our laws are hollow and we've proven it by looking the other way from our own offences.
Not that I hate our government, of course. But I hate what they do!
-
And by the way, get the hell out of the road! Those people trying to get home from their jobs are not billionaires in limousines. They're ordinary people who actually work for a living and can't afford to sit around in parks all day protesting about the capitalist plot to destroy mankind.
Because you work for the capitalists. Without even knowing it, you are just another little Eichmann...
-
This protest continues gaining credibility.
-
We can only make decisions about our own monarch. But, it is entirely possible to disassociate our sovereign from that of the other Commonwealth Realms. The question is: what's the need? Canada doesn't seem to have been hampered in any way by its personal union with the Queen's other countries; not yet, anyway. Changes to the monarchy are likely to be stifled more by internal politics than external, I'd say.
It is hampered. You just demonstrated it.
In the recent example, you said it is unlikely that the they change the male progenitor, even if Canada voted for it. Like it or not, the next Canadian Monarch must be a male first, if there is a male heir in line!
This shocks and offends my conscience...
-
You've said this, but not what the actual benefit is over what we have now. And, frankly, I see the addition of "monarchical elections" to actually be disadvantageous, divisive and easily taken over by political parties.
We should then become disentangled from the political influences/ beliefs/ cultural bias of other commonwealth countries. We need only make decisions with our own Monarch.
-
Looks like Obamacare is falling apart, even before it gets to the Supreme Court. Not all that suprising since the legislation was so rushed, and therefore so flawed.
This is one of the many reasons why their claims of Obamacare reducing the deficit was such a farce. Once the Supreme Court strikes down the ridiculous individual mandate, Obamacare falls like a house of cards.
It also shows how ineffective, ie. paralyzed the US system is in being unable to resolve this issue. Successive presidents have tried, failed and failed again to provide a satisfactory model.
-
I don't want the 'heirs succeeding'. I would rather want a person who gets selected by the Canadian people through some democratic means. The 'First Canadian' would be the Canadian Monarch for life. It will not gender biased, and does not get passed on through heredity.
-
Today is apparently a global Occupy day in support of those who began at Wall Street. This hasn't died yet. It's gaining momentum, whether we like it or not.
-
Hypothetical situation:
Police come across a bunch of people smoking pot. Two of them are observed sharing a joint. The other two, were waiting to smoke it. Two other people did not smoke it, but knew that it was there.
One person who smoked it earlier, left the scene before police arrived.
Which of these people can be prosecuted? By Canadian law, please...
-
Here's some footage of the CSIS interrogation of Omar Khadr:
-
I'm curious as to the ethnic descent of some of the more vocal anti-monarchy posters in this thread.
Personally, I am proud of my British heritage (perhaps a bit more for the Irish and Scot!
) and loyal to my Queen.Those that want to change it can piss off!
I'm curious as to the ethnic descent, of those that DO support the monarchy in this thread. Yours is clear to us now, and thus self-explanatory.
Anyone else who's a staunch monarchist care to share your ethnic descent with us? Just curious...
-
It would be nice to see the male primogeniture and anti-Catholic provisions* gone from our succession laws. But, I have my doubts it's going to happen. Consitutional change in Canada alone will be a quagmire.
* Though, there is still that interesting question that never seems to be addressed: Could there ever be an issue with a Catholic head of one sovereign state having to be faithful to the Pope, who is himself the head of another sovereign state?
[+]
Your post demonstrates a weakness in being tied down to a system that is too wide-spread, requires too many differing factions to unanimously agree in order for effectual change to take place.
While you yourself agree the change would be a positive one, you admit that it's unlikely to happen because of the inherent dilemma. Exactly why it is better to be more independent and determine our own unique sense of fairness and justice, and the ability to revise and change laws when necessary, as dictated by circumstance.
Any system that is so mired in tradition that it cannot adapt, even when people agree that it's necessary, does not serve the people. It becomes a hindrance based on a mere abstraction.
Obama vs Romney - POTUS 2012
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted
Are the Republicans buying into false leftist narratives? And why. Or could it be that those narratives are not false in their view, but they are false in yours. Otherwise, I can't imagine why they would cut their own throats.