Nearly 3 million Americans in Jail

[Shady]

Then you will be once again proven wrong by a foolish kid.

Now show us what you're made of Greenthumb so I won't have to do it for you.

I would love to be proven wrong. Please Greenthumb, prove me wrong. Please UShaditComing, prove me wrong. Name some precious freedoms that have slipped away since Harper took office. For the love of God, prove me wrong.

???

Waiting for what?

LOL. I'm still waiting. Actually, now for your answer, and from Greenthumb. Come on guys, I'll allow both of you to collaborate on answers if that'll help. Btw, don't post ignorant arguments if you're not prepared to back them up.

[WestViking]

Of course rehabilitation works and we need to put more emphasis on making it work better. Why would you ask such a question? It's the main reason why we put people in jail to start with and along with the punitive punishment for the crime we hope that we can let them out and they won't repeat offend. If there is no emphasis on that then we would end up with a situation

I do not confuse 'rehabilitation' with recycling. They are not the same thing.

I wish people who casually toss off the term rehabilitation had a clue as to what the term means:

rehabilitation:

1 a. The action of re-establishing (a person) in a former standing with respect to rank and legal rights ( or church privileges); the result of such action; also, a writ by which such restoration is made. (In early use chiefly Sc.)

1 b. Reinstatement (of a person) in any previous position or privilege.

1 c. Re-establishment of a person's reputation; vindication of character.

2 a. The action of replacing a thing in, or restoring it to, a previous condition or status.

2 b. Restoration to a higher moral state.

2 c. Restoration (of a disabled person, a criminal, etc.) to some degree of normal life by appropriate training.

If we incarcerate an amoral, barbaric, irresponsible and violent person and the best we can do is restore them to original status, that is, amoral, barbaric, irresponsible, violent and free, we have utterly failed society. We cannot restore criminals to a 'normal life' if they did not lead a normal life prior to incarceration.

That means educating convicts in personal responsibility, cause and effect, and social civility and decorum for a start. They are in prison because they engaged in socially unacceptable acts or behaviours and reintegration into society requires learning alternative behaviours. Nothing less will suffice.

The little darlings have a clear choice of learning civil behaviour or doing life in prison on an installment plan of about three payments. Third strike and they are in prison for good. Brutal but effective.

Edited March 8, 2008 by WestViking

[WestViking]

I know it would be satisfying for some people to hear that locked up criminals are getting a lashing every day in jail but they should realize that those criminals are going to get out of jail some day and are going to come out lashing back at we lawabiding citizens. Hate is the wrong emotion when dealing with this problem and just look where it got the US!

If a convicted criminal threatens more crimes on release, the solution is simple - keep him in prison.

[UShaditComing]

Is everything US bad, Canada good?

No, Canada is not good and our presence in Afghanistan fighting another US war is proof of that. Rather than take the high road and stay out of it as most European countries are doing, Harper has succumbed to the US econmic blackmail. Canada was duped into taking part in Clinton's Kosovo war but that's no excuse to not bear the guilt. Republicans opposed that war so they will be able to understand that right away. Americans usually only support their own party's wars. The Freepers were very vocally against that one too.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, Canada is not good and our presence in Afghanistan fighting another US war is proof of that. Rather than take the high road and stay out of it as most European countries are doing....

More nonsense, to wit:

As of March 6, 2008, there have been 773 coalition deaths in Afghanistan as part of ongoing coalition operations (Operation Enduring Freedom and International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)): 485 American, 89 British, 79 Canadian, 25 German, 23 Spanish, 14 Dutch, 12 French, 12 Italian, 10 Danish, 5 Romanian, 4 Australian, 3 Norwegian, 2 Estonian, 2 Portuguese, 2 Swedish, 1 Czech, 1 Finnish, 3 Polish, 1 South Korean.

Source: Wiki

[UShaditComing]

More nonsense, to wit:

As of March 6, 2008, there have been 773 coalition deaths in Afghanistan as part of ongoing coalition operations (Operation Enduring Freedom and International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)): 485 American, 89 British, 79 Canadian, 25 German, 23 Spanish, 14 Dutch, 12 French, 12 Italian, 10 Danish, 5 Romanian, 4 Australian, 3 Norwegian, 2 Estonian, 2 Portuguese, 2 Swedish, 1 Czech, 1 Finnish, 3 Polish, 1 South Korean.

Source: Wiki

In name only because nobody's contributing a lick more than putting their name to it. Sort of reminds me of the coalition of the willingin Iraq: Morrocco, Palau, ........

Source: Right off the top of my head.

[bush_cheney2004]

In name only because nobody's contributing a lick more than putting their name to it. Sort of reminds me of the coalition of the willingin Iraq: Morrocco, Palau, ........

Source: Right off the top of my head.

Those Europeans are just as dead as any Canadian or American. What part of "coalition deaths" don't you understand?

[UShaditComing]

Those Europeans are just as dead as any Canadian or American. What part of "coalition deaths" don't you understand?

I understand all about deaths of the 'coalition of the duped' but the point I was making is that the coalition was made up of many countries which didn't contribute militarily but the US used the names of some of those coutries to make it look like it was widely supported in Iraq. And of course in the beginning the US had little interest in even bothering with Afghanistan and it's recorded that it wanted to just go to Iraq and bomb Saddam's country. I think it was Clarke who blew the whistle on that because he couldn't quite understand why. We who understand what your ME meddling is all about understood perfectly well that 9/11 was being used as justification for Bush2 to finish off Iraq.

How patently fraudulent and sad.

[bush_cheney2004]

I understand all about deaths of the 'coalition of the duped' but the point I was making is that the coalition was made up of many countries which didn't contribute militarily but the US used the names of some of those coutries to make it look like it was widely supported in Iraq....

No, I don't think you do. Afghanistan is the monkey wrench in your whole argument, as many "European" nations are there in various roles, and have taken numerous casualities.

How patently fraudulent and sad.

Then weep if you must....the world goes on, just as it has before. That includes wars.

[UShaditComing]

No, I don't think you do. Afghanistan is the monkey wrench in your whole argument, as many "European" nations are there in various roles, and have taken numerous casualities.

Then weep if you must....the world goes on, just as it has before. That includes wars.

Indeed it does but that doesn't mean that we should accept all the US wars as justified and good. We need to look closely at the pro-war propaganda and question it when it is fraudulent. This is your whole complaint about me on this forum. You don't want your wars questioned and especially in a way which leaves you flatfooted for a reasonable rebuttal.

[bush_cheney2004]

Indeed it does but that doesn't mean that we should accept all the US wars as justified and good. We need to look closely at the pro-war propaganda and question it when it is fraudulent. This is your whole complaint about me on this forum. You don't want your wars questioned and especially in a way which leaves you flatfooted for a reasonable rebuttal.

So let me get this straight....you support wars that are not "fraudulent"? Dead and maimed people are secondary to the pressing questions of international legalities? You must be joking!

[UShaditComing]

So let me get this straight....you support wars that are not "fraudulent"? Dead and maimed people are secondary to the pressing questions of international legalities? You must be joking!

No, I didn't say that and I think you are losing control of your sanity now if you try to suggest that. You see I know somthing about the history of wars and I have learned that WW2 could have been avoided if Germany had been dealth with in a more fair and balanced manner for it's WW1 exploits. If you understand the history you may be able to agree but if you don't then please don't waste my time with comments on my being pro-German or any other such nonsense. However I would much rather stick to the current US wars.

And I'm sorry to say that after reading some of your comments I'm coming to the conclusion that you really aren't very bright after all. This quote tells me that. You're in over your head and you just don't have much to say other than ridiculous accusations against me of that sort. Buck up now and do better or I won't play with you any more.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, I didn't say that and I think you are losing control of your sanity now if you try to suggest that. You see I know somthing about the history of wars and I have learned that WW2 could have been avoided if Germany had been dealth with in a more fair and balanced manner for it's WW1 exploits. If you understand the history you may be able to agree but if you don't then please don't waste my time with comments on my being pro-German or any other such nonsense. However I would much rather stick to the current US wars.

Woulda...coulda...shoulda. Please try to stick to reality if you can. If pigs had wings, they could fly?

And I'm sorry to say that after reading some of your comments I'm coming to the conclusion that you really aren't very bright after all. This quote tells me that. You're in over your head and you just don't have much to say other than ridiculous accusations against me of that sort. Buck up now and do better or I won't play with you any more.

Quitting while losing the game is not very sporting...except in chess.

[Shady]

Then you will be once again proven wrong by a foolish kid.

Now show us what you're made of Greenthumb so I won't have to do it for you.

I would love to be proven wrong. Please Greenthumb, prove me wrong. Please UShaditComing, prove me wrong. Name some precious freedoms that have slipped away since Harper took office. For the love of God, prove me wrong.

???

Waiting for what?

LOL. I'm still waiting. Actually, now for your answer, and from Greenthumb. Come on guys, I'll allow both of you to collaborate on answers if that'll help. Btw, don't post ignorant arguments if you're not prepared to back them up.

[UShaditComing]

Wasn't the issue about the Americans losing their rights and freedoms?

How about a suspension of Habeas Corpus?

And in Canada how about holding two people under house arrest without access to due process for years?

Edited March 9, 2008 by UShaditComing

[White Doors]

Wasn't the issue about the Americans losing their rights and freedoms?

How about a suspension of Habeas Corpus?

And in Canada how about holding two people under house arrest without access to due process for years?

Keep going! Now link that back to Harper somehow.

Come on, I know you can do it!!

[DrGreenthumb]

How about the freedom to a fair trial? How about the freedom not to be incarcerated if a judge does not deem incarceration necessary? Harper is taking us down the same road the US has proven is a failure and playing on the fears of of a paranoid electorate to do it. Harper would love a private prison industry in Canada so that he can invest in it and get rich off every person he jails like Bush does. I can hear the conservatives already scheming about how they can fill the jails with harmless pot users/growers so that they can claim the jails are overflowing and we need a private industry "solution" to prison overcrowding.

These same arseholes that complain the government wants to know who has guns, think it is not only the government's business if I grow a cannabis plant, they believe that I should take up space, at taxpayer's expense for 6 months in jail for ONE PLANT.

Mandatory minimums and a "WAR on PLANTS" represent a huge loss of freedoms for Canadians, if you can't see that then you are blinded by party loyalty. Conservatives like to sell themselves as the "small government" party but following the US to wars, including aphganistan (and IRAQ if we would have had a conservative government in power), wars on natural medicines(cannabis), and dumb policies like mandatory minimums, make the conservatives the party of HUGE GOVERNMENT.

Reverse onus laws represent another loss of freedom that Harper has brought Canadians. The freedom to be considered innocent until proven guilty is one of the most basic freedoms expected in a free country. Our justice system is based on the presumption of innocence, Harper has brought in the presumption of guilt.

I could go on and on, but as long as the freedom's lost don't directly affect YOU, or UNTIL they do, you will continue to pretend that they don't matter, or are insignificant. You do not deserve freedom, by supporting Harper you are the enemy of freedom.

And UShaditcoming knock off the foolish kid bullshit already, I am a father of 3, and probably a lot older and less foolish than you. Your nick is an insult to all of those that died in 9/11, did they deserve to die? I never suggested that we should remove children if the parents had financial difficulties, I said we should not be giving financial incentives to have kids when you can't afford them. I don't think screwing your way to 5 different kids from 5 different dads should be a "career option". If you couldn't rely on the state to pay your way maybe some of these lifelong welfare cases would be careful who they opened their legs for. I don't call screwing your way to 5 kids, and no job "financial difficulties", I call it hugely irresponsible, in fact too irresponsible to be entrusted with the care of children.

[White Doors]

Reverse onus laws represent another loss of freedom that Harper has brought Canadians. The freedom to be considered innocent until proven guilty is one of the most basic freedoms expected in a free country. Our justice system is based on the presumption of innocence, Harper has brought in the presumption of guilt.

As you know (or should) this is for bail/parole only.

A 'presumption of innocence' is not used for these purposes.

So where is your proof that Harper has eroded freedoms?

thanks!

Edited March 10, 2008 by White Doors

[Shady]

Wasn't the issue about the Americans losing their rights and freedoms?

Nope. Nice try.

How about the freedom to a fair trial?

Everyone in Canada is given access to a fair trial. Nothing has changed.

How about the freedom not to be incarcerated if a judge does not deem incarceration necessary?

That's not a freedom. If one commits a violent crime (mandatory minimum sentences are only associated with violent crime, rape, murder) and a judge doesn't think a jail sentence is necessary, then that judge should be impeached. Legislators, who are voted into office my the Canadian people, writing legislation making a minimum prison sentence for violent criminals mandatory does not equal "precious" freedoms slipping away. That's quite absurd.

a "WAR on PLANTS" represent a huge loss of freedoms for Canadians

Canadians didn't have the freedom to smoke, sell and/or grow marijuana before Harper became Prime Minister. To suggest otherwise is also absurd.

Reverse onus laws represent another loss of freedom that Harper has brought Canadians

Reverse onus laws only apply to bail not to trial, and are only associated with gun crimes. Harper first made these announcements with Dalton McGuinty (Liberal), and Toronto Mayor David Miller (New Democrat). Link

I could go on and on

I'm sure you could, and you'd be wrong and wrong.

[UShaditComing]

greenthumb wrote:

And UShaditcoming knock off the foolish kid bullshit already, I am a father of 3, and probably a lot older and less foolish than you. Your nick is an insult to all of those that died in 9/11, did they deserve to die? I never suggested that we should remove children if the parents had financial difficulties, I said we should not be giving financial incentives to have kids when you can't afford them. I don't think screwing your way to 5 different kids from 5 different dads should be a "career option". If you couldn't rely on the state to pay your way maybe some of these lifelong welfare cases would be careful who they opened their legs for. I don't call screwing your way to 5 kids, and no job "financial difficulties", I call it hugely irresponsible, in fact too irresponsible to be entrusted with the care of children.

You're not older than I am and you're not very mature either. You did indeed advocate taking children from their parents if the parents were unable to provide for them. I have grandchildren sonny. Screwing my way? More immaturity and extreme right ideology. My name doesn't say that people deserved to die but it does say that the US deserved to be hit in revenge for what they have done on the Arabian peninsula. Read Osama reasons given for the 9/11 attacks. And read my signature below. It's not a complicated concept but I understand how it makes some people feel uncomfortable. The reason they are feeling uncomfortable and irritated is because they know it is true but they expect loyalty from Canadians for their wars. Most Canadians understand that their wars cause blowback. Is any war different.

But by all means keep up your silly ranting because you seem to be able to put your foot in your mouth every time you open it. Your crude comments about women who have children and are in most cases left by the man to fend for themselves is another example of your shallowness, your ignorance, and your immaturity.

A true and perfect representative of the Harper mentality.

[DrGreenthumb]

Nope. Nice try.

Everyone in Canada is given access to a fair trial. Nothing has changed.

That's not a freedom. If one commits a violent crime (mandatory minimum sentences are only associated with violent crime, rape, murder) and a judge doesn't think a jail sentence is necessary, then that judge should be impeached. Legislators, who are voted into office my the Canadian people, writing legislation making a minimum prison sentence for violent criminals mandatory does not equal "precious" freedoms slipping away. That's quite absurd.

Canadians didn't have the freedom to smoke, sell and/or grow marijuana before Harper became Prime Minister. To suggest otherwise is also absurd.

Reverse onus laws only apply to bail not to trial, and are only associated with gun crimes. Harper first made these announcements with Dalton McGuinty (Liberal), and Toronto Mayor David Miller (New Democrat). Link

I'm sure you could, and you'd be wrong and wrong.

It is you who is wrong, mandatory minimums may have once only been for violent crimes but the conservatives have added a whole list of new "crimes" to the madatory minimums list.

Can you explain to me exactly growing plants could be construed as a violent crime? As little as one plant is a mandatory minimum of 6 months in jail in the conservative "crime" bill.

I'm not suggesting that it wasn't technically illegal smoke sell or grow cannabis before Harper became prime minister only that Harper is trying to make doing so a lot more dangerous for all involved. Arrests have risen by 1/3 since the conservatives took office. That is 1/3 more Canadians being charged under an unjust law. The law is evil in itself but the more heavily it is enforced the more evil is done. Harper is an authoritarian, to deny that is absurd. I don't share his values and no law is going to change that. Most people don't consider cannabis users, sellers or growers criminals.

[UShaditComing]

When you become more mature greenthumb you will become a conservative because you support the conservative ideology much more closely than you do the liberal. For now you will just defend what you think is your right to smoke pot. Good, I have too but it's not my priority in life.

My guess is that you were a Reform party supporter because that party was made up of extreme lefties and extreme righties who were disenfranchised and confused. At the present time your ideology is too extreme to fit in with any of Canada's political parties.

[DrGreenthumb]

greenthumb wrote:

You're not older than I am and you're not very mature either. You did indeed advocate taking children from their parents if the parents were unable to provide for them. I have grandchildren sonny. Screwing my way? More immaturity and extreme right ideology. My name doesn't say that people deserved to die but it does say that the US deserved to be hit in revenge for what they have done on the Arabian peninsula. Read Osama reasons given for the 9/11 attacks. And read my signature below. It's not a complicated concept but I understand how it makes some people feel uncomfortable. The reason they are feeling uncomfortable and irritated is because they know it is true but they expect loyalty from Canadians for their wars. Most Canadians understand that their wars cause blowback. Is any war different.

But by all means keep up your silly ranting because you seem to be able to put your foot in your mouth every time you open it. Your crude comments about women who have children and are in most cases left by the man to fend for themselves is another example of your shallowness, your ignorance, and your immaturity.

A true and perfect representative of the Harper mentality.

Harper mentality? Give me a break I can't stand that fool. Why don't you define maturity for us Mr high and mighty? I agree that the American's problems are largely due to their foriegn policy,but i don't think that the people who died as a result "had it coming"

I guess you think that no matter how many kids a person pops out we as the tax payer should continue to just keep doling out more and more money so that the kids don't starve? Where does personal responsibility come in? What I'm saying is that people might be more careful who they have kids with if they weren't guaranteed a bigger welfare check by getting knocked up. I have just as much contempt for the fathers who don't support their kids as the mother who expect me to do it for them. I think that eventually somebody has to say enough is enough. I think that having more kids than you can feed is neglect and I'm not against removing kids from neglectful parents. It should be as easy as possible for the poor/disadvantaged to get ahead in this country but I will always be against handing out money for nothing.

The attitude you are displaying in here is only going to make everyone tune out everything you say, even those of us that agree wih most of it, like myself. So stop being so friggin condescending Gramps.

[UShaditComing]

Harper mentality? Give me a break I can't stand that fool. Why don't you define maturity for us Mr high and mighty? I agree that the American's problems are largely due to their foriegn policy,but i don't think that the people who died as a result "had it coming"

I guess you think that no matter how many kids a person pops out we as the tax payer should continue to just keep doling out more and more money so that the kids don't starve? Where does personal responsibility come in? What I'm saying is that people might be more careful who they have kids with if they weren't guaranteed a bigger welfare check by getting knocked up. I have just as much contempt for the fathers who don't support their kids as the mother who expect me to do it for them. I think that eventually somebody has to say enough is enough. I think that having more kids than you can feed is neglect and I'm not against removing kids from neglectful parents. It should be as easy as possible for the poor/disadvantaged to get ahead in this country but I will always be against handing out money for nothing.

The attitude you are displaying in here is only going to make everyone tune out everything you say, even those of us that agree wih most of it, like myself. So stop being so friggin condescending Gramps.

I would consider myself fortunate if some of your ilk did tune me out. You have said things you can't take back and so you are responsible for it. You don't seem to understand that your hatred of people who are down and out or down on their luck for many different reasons need to be helped. This is very consistent with the US mentality where they don't believe in universal healthcare or government assistance of any kind. It's conservatism at it's very worst and it's consistent with Harper's mentality. You seem to understand that Harper is bad but you don't yet understand that your rabid hate for others is really just rabid right conservatism. Ask any conservative. Look up the definition of conservative. Look up the definition of liberal. I'm only trying to help you understand but you're obviously not ready yet. You clearly have the makings of a extreme conservative and you were most likely a Preston Manning suppporter too. If not, you should have been because your ideology comes closest to his. You certainly don't display any soicalist traits or sociallly responsible conscience.

Try to think about that for a while before you start wagging your toungue again at me.

[White Doors]

I would consider myself fortunate if some of your ilk did tune me out. You have said things you can't take back and so you are responsible for it. You don't seem to understand that your hatred of people who are down and out or down on their luck for many different reasons need to be helped. This is very consistent with the US mentality where they don't believe in universal healthcare or government assistance of any kind. It's conservatism at it's very worst and it's consistent with Harper's mentality. You seem to understand that Harper is bad but you don't yet understand that your rabid hate for others is really just rabid right conservatism. Ask any conservative. Look up the definition of conservative. Look up the definition of liberal. I'm only trying to help you understand but you're obviously not ready yet. You clearly have the makings of a extreme conservative and you were most likely a Preston Manning suppporter too. If not, you should have been because your ideology comes closest to his. You certainly don't display any soicalist traits or sociallly responsible conscience.

Try to think about that for a while before you start wagging your toungue again at me.

you seem to hate Harper and Bush. Are you from the extreme right?

'Cause a good socialist, like Stalin & Hitler, is incapable of hate right?

Keep digging!