Wilber Posted September 26, 2011 Report Posted September 26, 2011 Ah yes, the law is the law is the law isn't it? I recall you once said if they outlawed tomatoes or some such thing tomorrow, you'd toe that line with a real spring to your step. No doubt you'd love to experiment with allowing them back but in the meantime you'd probably be calling TIPS every chance you got. I have to say to say that this sort of sycophantic toadying to authority is what really pisses me off the most about contemporary right wing conservatism these days. Facts and arguments don't have a freakin' chance with you people. Campaigning and working to have laws changed is fine. Many of them probably should be but laws can't be optional according to ones personal view of the world. If you choose to break a law, be prepared to accept the consequences. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
CitizenX Posted September 26, 2011 Report Posted September 26, 2011 Campaigning and working to have laws changed is fine. Many of them probably should be but laws can't be optional according to ones personal view of the world. If you choose to break a law, be prepared to accept the consequences. One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. - Martin Luther King, Jr. An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so. - Mohandas Gandhi Quote "The rich people have their lobbyists and the poor people have their feet." The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. - Plato
Shwa Posted September 26, 2011 Author Report Posted September 26, 2011 What is interesting is to see how this party political method has played out among conservative supporters, as evidenced by some of the commentary right here on MLW. That they can only assert, but lack the evidence to engage. You see? I predicted the future. No facts, no debate, the same irrelvant talking points are trotted out at every turn. Same old story. Did you know that crime costs us all 47 billion dollars, maybe even 100 billion when you factor in other things and perhaps even a trillion when other values are added? And so on and so on, ad nauseum. Never mind explaining how that is relevant or how that will possible change, just parrot the talking point. Watch the intellectuals howl. Sheesh. Quote
Scotty Posted September 26, 2011 Report Posted September 26, 2011 Ya I checked out those sites again and I can still not find a time frame duration for those costs.Is those costs per year,two years,five or ten? These are per year. Aswell is the cost of keeping an entire judicial system afloat calculated as an expence of crime? I didn't get into the higher figure. The lower figure did not include the cost of prisons, police or courts. Adding the cost for security,security systems and so on is a liberal addition to the cost of crime.Do you have any evidence that these measures have reduced crime? No, but those aren't the costs of crime reduction, but the cost of the existence of crime. That is, if it weren't for crime, we wouldn't be putting so many resources into protecting ourselves and our businesses from it. How many people are going to put money into alarm systems if house burglaries are rare? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted September 26, 2011 Report Posted September 26, 2011 No some are moral judgments of a religious base and social engineering. If you prefer. That's still divided between Right and Left. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted September 26, 2011 Report Posted September 26, 2011 I'm talking about a Criminal Justice System that is not just oriented towards the offenders, but also the victims and families. In the specialized courts that deal with domestic violence, this means providing services for the victims and their children. It means considering their needs and what a successful handling of their cases means. That doesn't always mean putting someone in jail, especially if she's a stay at home mom and he pays all the bills or if it would mean her losing her kids. No matter, that's just an example. I think this type of thinking should be carried into the rest of the criminal justice system. We need to consider offender accountability amongst a host of other things, such as the victims' needs. While I haven't made a study of it or anything, I've heard an awful lot of negatives about domestic abuse laws, as well, along the lines of they treat everyone like children, ignore what both sides say and what both sides want, and substitute society's judgement on what is best for society rather than what is best for the family concerned. I'm talking about such things as automatic arrests with any sign of violence, however slight, regardless of what the 'victim' says, and making it very easy to remove an alleged abusing spouse from a house without any trial or even substantive evidence. Basically, if a woman says her male partner abused her he's arrested and banned from the house, and it really doesn't matter what he says or wants. From what I've heard, most of this category of law is ideologically based and starts from the presumption the male partner must be guilty because he's male. That's what I've picked up from a variety of media reports anyway. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted September 26, 2011 Report Posted September 26, 2011 And the discussion comes full-circle to the opening post. This government has taken it upon itself to make decisions based solely on political whims. It's horrible governance, regardless of the party doing it. While I agree that some of the contents of the omnibus bill are political, I don't think all of it is, and I think some of it holds great value. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted September 26, 2011 Report Posted September 26, 2011 Ah yes, the law is the law is the law isn't it? I recall you once said if they outlawed tomatoes or some such thing tomorrow, you'd toe that line with a real spring to your step. No doubt you'd love to experiment with allowing them back but in the meantime you'd probably be calling TIPS every chance you got. Not sure if I used tomatoes or not. But whatever. The point I was making was that pot is either an addiction (you claim otherwise) or a hobby. If you choose to ignore the law because you're so desperate to get at your 'hobby' you shouldn't bitch and whine if the law catches you up for it. Sure, you can complain about the law existing, but to go do it anyway, even though you risk jail, well, that's just flat out hillbilly dumb. I have to say to say that this sort of sycophantic toadying to authority is what really pisses me off the most about contemporary right wing conservatism these days. Facts and arguments don't have a freakin' chance with you people. You're, as usual, putting things upside down and ass backwards. Conservatives aren't kowtowing to what the government wants on crime. The government is responding to what conservatives want on crime. I would have thought that was blindingly obvious by now. Conservatives, either small c or not, don't like criminals, especially the kind who are a threat to us and our homes and families. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted September 26, 2011 Report Posted September 26, 2011 They'd like to think they were fiscally conservatives, but if you look at the country, the fiscal situation here has deteriorated since the moment they took office. Even before the recession hit they'd already spent us into deficit. (Keep in mind Paul Martin left them with a 9.1 billion dollar surplus) Nonsense. I realize to the far Left, any money the government doesn't take is somehow lost, but the fact was that the government was taking too much in taxes. All the Conservatives did was cut taxes somewhat so the government took less. There has been a suggestion by some that the government would have been in a recession that final year even if not for the recession and big incentive spending, but that was never born out. Perhaps. If they had been, they'd have been in big trouble with conservative supporters and would have had to act quickly to reverse it. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted September 26, 2011 Report Posted September 26, 2011 One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. - Martin Luther King, Jr. An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so. - Mohandas Gandhi I think he was talking about laws which banned Black people from not being able to vote, not laws that banned potheads from puffing away at their favorite entertainment device. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted September 26, 2011 Report Posted September 26, 2011 You see? I predicted the future. No facts, no debate, the same irrelvant talking points are trotted out at every turn. Same old story. What I find amusing is you're responding to yourself -- and you're right, you've introduced no facts and no debate. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
CitizenX Posted September 27, 2011 Report Posted September 27, 2011 (edited) I think he was talking about laws which banned Black people from not being able to vote, not laws that banned potheads from puffing away at their favorite entertainment device. No the man was talking about unjust laws, it's right there in the quote. And what's with the derogatory remarks towards people that smoke marijuana? Are you a holier than thou beer drinker/hypocritical Christian? Edited September 27, 2011 by CitizenX Quote "The rich people have their lobbyists and the poor people have their feet." The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. - Plato
Wilber Posted September 27, 2011 Report Posted September 27, 2011 No the man was talking about unjust laws, it's right there in the quote. And what's with the derogatory remarks towards people that smoke marijuana? Because all these topics seem to turn into pot threads. It seems there is no greater injustice than not being able to get stoned. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
cybercoma Posted September 27, 2011 Report Posted September 27, 2011 While I haven't made a study of it or anything, I've heard an awful lot of negatives about domestic abuse laws, as well, along the lines of they treat everyone like children, ignore what both sides say and what both sides want, and substitute society's judgement on what is best for society rather than what is best for the family concerned. I'm talking about such things as automatic arrests with any sign of violence, however slight, regardless of what the 'victim' says, and making it very easy to remove an alleged abusing spouse from a house without any trial or even substantive evidence. Basically, if a woman says her male partner abused her he's arrested and banned from the house, and it really doesn't matter what he says or wants. From what I've heard, most of this category of law is ideologically based and starts from the presumption the male partner must be guilty because he's male. That's what I've picked up from a variety of media reports anyway. You're right to some extent, but you're critciising it on the assumption that it's gender-biased against men. That's not exactly the case. The problem is that it's ideologically biased towards a crime and punishment model, which doesn't necessarily work in a domestic violence environment and I would argue that it just doesn't work all that well for society as a whole. It seems gender-biased because for every 1 woman that's arrested for domestic violence, there are 9 men arrested for it. That, however, has more to do with the inherent gender power disparity in society and not necessarily a function of some systemic bias. Many times the victim doesn't want the accused removed from the home because he may be the father of the children and he may be providing a substantial portion of the revenues for the family-unit. In this case, taking a father away from his kids and the provider away from his job could potentially cause more harm than good. Quote
eyeball Posted September 27, 2011 Report Posted September 27, 2011 Campaigning and working to have laws changed is fine. Many of them probably should be but laws can't be optional according to ones personal view of the world. If you choose to break a law, be prepared to accept the consequences. When the state clearly relaxes it's grip over a number of years but then suddenly yanks hard on the chain for no damn good reason, submit. Got it. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Shwa Posted September 27, 2011 Author Report Posted September 27, 2011 What I find amusing is you're responding to yourself -- and you're right, you've introduced no facts and no debate. No, I was putting it out there as a general response to everyone else. And you still miss the point of the OP and vigourously scrape the bottom of the barrel searching for relevant factoids. As predicted. Quote
eyeball Posted September 27, 2011 Report Posted September 27, 2011 Because all these topics seem to turn into pot threads. It seems there is no greater injustice than not being able to get stoned. No, its because there's no greater stupidity than the state filling new jails with thousands of people for pot. The injustice of course is that people are still free to get rip roaring drunk with state supplied booze. I'm not arguing that the state doesn't have a responsibility to protect society from the harm that recreationally altering your mind can do just that the effect of the laws the state uses to do this should be equal. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
CitizenX Posted September 27, 2011 Report Posted September 27, 2011 (edited) No, its because there's no greater stupidity than the state filling new jails with thousands of people for pot. The injustice of course is that people are still free to get rip roaring drunk with state supplied booze. I'm not arguing that the state doesn't have a responsibility to protect society from the harm that recreationally altering your mind can do just that the effect of the laws the state uses to do this should be equal. I think it's worse than that. It's not illegal just because some pin head nerd is afraid to expand his mind and or enjoy a recreational drug (Harper) and thinks he know whats best for other grown adults. It's because the US would flip their lid, and Harper (like all conservatives) wishes he was American and doesn't want to piss off his masters. I LOVE THIS CARTOON IT'S SO TRUE ( I almost pissed myself when I first saw it Edited September 27, 2011 by CitizenX Quote "The rich people have their lobbyists and the poor people have their feet." The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. - Plato
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 27, 2011 Report Posted September 27, 2011 ....It's because the US would flip their lid, and Harper (like all conservatives) wishes he was American and doesn't want to piss off his masters. Gee...that sure doesn't jibe with Canada and its liberal party banning cannabis years before the American feds. Just sayin'... Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Wilber Posted September 27, 2011 Report Posted September 27, 2011 No, its because there's no greater stupidity than the state filling new jails with thousands of people for pot. The injustice of course is that people are still free to get rip roaring drunk with state supplied booze. I'm not arguing that the state doesn't have a responsibility to protect society from the harm that recreationally altering your mind can do just that the effect of the laws the state uses to do this should be equal. Maybe they should, just sayin that for many, changing unjust laws begins and ends with pot. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
eyeball Posted September 27, 2011 Report Posted September 27, 2011 Maybe they should, just sayin that for many, changing unjust laws begins and ends with pot. Maintaining injustice requires stupidity, hypocrisy and debates without facts and arguments. We have to deal with these first. The government is who made pot central to this...debate, by proposing legislation that will lock up thousands of new convicts because of it. Or am I supposed to believe this legislation is actually targeting the thousands of unreported murderers, rapists and armed robbers that are roaming the streets? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Shwa Posted September 27, 2011 Author Report Posted September 27, 2011 Maintaining injustice requires stupidity, hypocrisy and debates without facts and arguments. We have to deal with these first. The government is who made pot central to this...debate, by proposing legislation that will lock up thousands of new convicts because of it. Or am I supposed to believe this legislation is actually targeting the thousands of unreported murderers, rapists and armed robbers that are roaming the streets? The documentation for the latter is called, 'The Minority Report.' Quote
jacee Posted September 27, 2011 Report Posted September 27, 2011 (edited) It's a mistake to think Harper is 'stupid' or 'misguided' in enacting this draconian "Omnibus Crime Bill" when he's being very systematic and goal directed. The pot laws are intended to distract us from the real intent of the legislation. The actions of the HarperThug cops at the G20 were a sign of things to come. The legislation encapsulates the hatred of the wealthy for the middle class and poor. The middle class has been gutted and is becoming the poor. The wealthy and their government puppets know very well that the "austerity" program set in motion at the G20 will result in increased crime and rioting against the wealthy. The legislation is much more sinister than "stupid". It's preparation to protect the wealthy from the 'impoverished masses' they have created by ruthlessly attacking the middle class and the poor. The income gap between the wealthiEST and the rest of us is and will continue to fuel the 'underground economy'. The legislation is an initial attempt to attack the underground economy which, in the absence of real economic growth in the middle income ranges, will become the mainstay of the poor and working classes (formerly the middle class). Welcome to the 19th century. The 'robber barons' are back and they are pi$$ed that 'ordinary people' thought they should have a good life. We're supposed to be miserable so the wealthy can feel good. In other words, in employment, health care, pensions, social safety net, housing, transportation, etc., the wealthy are jealous of the poor and middle classes and their greed and supremist view of their superiority is their only motive. The legislation is not 'stupid': It is classist greed and hatred codified into law. Edited September 27, 2011 by jacee Quote
cybercoma Posted September 27, 2011 Report Posted September 27, 2011 am I supposed to believe this legislation is actually targeting the thousands of unreported murderers, rapists and armed robbers that are roaming the streets? I'm still waiting for anyone to show how stiffer sentences and more prisons is actually going to address the issue of under-reported crime. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.