What is it with this 'Liberal' thing?

[midnight Target]

Sounds like Kieren wants constitutionally mandated labor unions.

[ravells]

This entire argument is getting turned upside down.

Lasz read the posts....I wasn't the one who said that criminals deserved lighter sentences...I was the one who said we voted for a system which was not prepared to pay for them to serve full terms.

BUT you appear to be saying that if they serve their full sentences (which I read is at least 40 years no matter what) then they ought to enjoy the same liberties as they had before so they can go out and reoffend...be they child molestors or gun crime people.

You appear to believe in this magical cure that if someone serves a full sentence they suddenly become law abiding. That is a bit silly, isn't it? I mean....Lasz....really!

The shades of grey (which you don't hold any stock by) which might make decide whether someone is held or released depends on the crime, their state of mind, the circumstances....I do understand that to you these are details which don't matter.

But, hey....as I see it, at least 3 billion people are following my version of the criminal justice system....how many are following yours?

Of course you're more intelligent than all of them

Ravs

[Airhead]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Sounds like Kieren wants constitutionally mandated labor unions.

Actually Kieran is parroting the Conservative POV when it comes to having a safe workplace and a livable wage. Liberals feel workers deserve a minimum wage and a safe working enviroment, Conservatives don't.

On this issue I must be a liberal then. (shrug)

[Kieran]

Oh, c'mon.

At least TRY to tell me what you think unions are for. If the government is going to legislate everything the unions are supposed to be about, exactly what ARE the unions for?

Parroting? Give me a break. How 'bout you give a straight answer?

[lazs2]

rav... I did not say that the minimum sentance should be forty years..  I said that a persons rights should be restored if he is released from prison.   If you believe that the person should be released with full rights  after serving 1 year then that would be fine.

For instance... a woman shoots a sleeping husband who has been beating her for years... she gets a 5 year sentance... serves evry minute of it and has all her human rights restored upon release inclding being able to buy a gun if she desires.

A man murders a store clerk in a robbery... he gets 20 years and serves every minute of it and then has all his rights restored.

A man molests several children... he is executed... in his new life... he gets to try again.

A man keeps and tortures a bunch of women... he is executed or given life in prison and serves every minute.

The "gray" area should be in the sentanceing not in the fact that the prisons are too crowded this year or this parole board is more or less livberal than that one or some well meaning shrink falls in love with some psychopath.  

When a jury/judge convicts and sentances... they should know that the well thought out sentance will be upheld...  They should also know that they deciding the severity of the sentance based on letting that person out with full human rights.

In your/our/the current system... the child molester and murderer is released over and over and over.... All the laws in the world that try to keep him away from children fail... he finds and molests another victim..   The gangbanger get's another gun and does in more of his scum bag buddies while making life rough on the rest of us.   Would he be so likely to join the gang and shoot other gangbangers if he were 45 when he was released with full rights or 30 with no rights?

You are correct tho... many countries use your system... one step above branding their forehead... I bet I live long enough to see things swing more toward the way I would like.    I bet they don't get much worse.    

englands rising crime rate is proof that the "free range" style of raising criminals is not working.
lazs

[DmdNexus]

Originally posted by lazs2
In your/our/the current system... the child molester and murderer is released over and over and over.... All the laws in the world that try to keep him away from children fail... he finds and molests another victim..   The gangbanger get's another gun and does in more of his scum bag buddies while making life rough on the rest of us.   Would he be so likely to join the gang and shoot other gangbangers if he were 45 when he was released with full rights or 30 with no rights?
 

Several things...  prisons are over populated with non-violent drug users... more than 50% of prison inmates are drug users... because of Reagan and Bush Sr's "Zero Tolerance" campaigne with manditory minimum sentences.

Violent criminals because there are no minimum sentences for them.

Give a choice between two evils, I'd rather have a murderer serving every day of a 40 year sentence in prison, and have a habitual pot smoker free to get high in front of his stereo.

Only have the Republican's to blame for the prison system.

1 out of every 5 black males in the DC/Baltimore area is under the Maryland correctional system... on probation or in prison...

A white Republican snorting cocain will get probation , a fine, rehabilitation, and community service, on their first offense... a black man in the inner city will be sent to prison for smoking crack on their first offense.

Republicans = Racists... just like their founding father Abe Lincoln

[lazs2]

nexus... I would agree that the prisons are too full of non violent offenders..   That has nothing to do with it.   I believe that if pot smokers were sentanced to 20 years in prison and the jury knew that they would have to serve all20....

we would get reform or the juries would simply refuse to convict.   There is plenty  of examples of juries refusing to convict guilty people because of bad laws or circumstance.

As for the poor downtrodden minorities....

Would you say that it is an American problem that we convict and imprison minorities at such a high rate?   We have six times as many blacks in prison per 100,000 as we do whites... all other minorities we have twice as many imprisoned as whites per 100,000....

perhaps we should be as enlightened as say....... england where the rate for blacks is only 6 times that of whites per 100,000 imprisoned and the rate for other minorities is only twice the rate per 100,000 as whites.

lazs

[Airhead]

Originally posted by Kieran
Oh, c'mon.

At least TRY to tell me what you think unions are for. If the government is going to legislate everything the unions are supposed to be about, exactly what ARE the unions for?

Parroting? Give me a break. How 'bout you give a straight answer?

Unions organize workers into barganing units to negotiate contracts with employeers. Although wges are a concern, contracts involve other issues which can be just as important- number of jobs guaranteed, health care, pensions, etc.

Unfortunately most American workers aren't Unionized, so the Government has mandated industry-by-industry health and safety standards and a minimum wage.

Now since the question before us is the difference between liberal and conservative, is it safe to say that liberals believe the Gov't. should police industry to enforce safety standards and conservatives don't? Or are you going to keep dancing?

[Kieran]

Now since the question before us is the difference between liberal and conservative, is it safe to say that liberals believe the Gov't. should police industry to enforce safety standards and conservatives don't? Or are you going to keep dancing?

THE difference, or A difference? Certainly liberals tend to think we cannot take care of ourselves, and certainly they believe it is the government's job to do so. No argument from me.

But... if you think I am saying I am against unions as a conservative, you are only partially right. I am against what unions have become, that is, protection for workers who have no intention of actually working. That hurts us all.

What I am saying is if unions actually did what they are supposed to do, we wouldn't need government intervention- or at least, we'd need far less.

[Airhead]

Originally posted by Kieran
THE difference, or A difference? Certainly liberals tend to think we cannot take care of ourselves, and certainly they believe it is the government's job to do so. No argument from me.

 

It's not a question of whether you can take care of yourself, it's a question of safe work enviroments and a liveable wage. Conservatives generally have opposed every advancement in workers' rights for the past 100 years.It is one issue that clearly defines the POV of both sides- why toss out those same old tired Rush Limbaugh lines and dance around this one specific issue?

[DmdNexus]

Originally posted by Kieran
Certainly liberals tend to think we cannot take care of ourselves, and certainly they believe it is the government's job to do so.

Alright.. I'll take this bait....

A person is liberal if the government does something on that person's behalf to help them out... rather than say let the free market do it's thing...

and in this arguement "person" could also mean an organization or a business.... or a collection of businesses.

Case in point...
Bush raises tarrifs on imported steel by 30%.
Why? to pretect American Steel companies... to allow them to modernize and compete with foreign steel companies which are more effecient...

Republicans are champions of anti-regulation, free market, and capitalism... yet they are also some of the stanches protectionists and special interest proponents.

Why not let the free market bury these ineffecient American steel companies... lay off the workers... shutdown the factories and let the free market have its way?

Instead, Bush, a Republican, is having the government "protect" US Steel... because it can't compete in a fair and open market.

And the WTO is going to levy fines... as well as all the foreign nations will respond in kind with sanctions and tarrifs against American goods.

Ook we saved the US Steel industry (or have we)... and screwed the rest of America.

If it's not military war... it's a trade war... Bush is an idiot... every business he's ever been a CEO of has filed for bankruptcy.

Sheesh!

[Hooligan]

Unions and companies only get away with doing bad things through the collusion of the Government.

If a company prefers to use thugs to beat and intimidate their workers rather than negotiate with them, or workers burn factory equipment rather than negotiate this is only allowed because government is not performing its police functions as it should be.

There is nothing wrong with Unions as long as they do not receive some special legal considerations which allow them to bargain with a company with the additional force of government coercion backing them up (which admittedly it often is).  As long as companies and unions are free to negotiate as they please and both sides can walk away if no acceptable deal is offered, the system works fine.  But when the government steps in and says you have to go back to work right now or that you have to hire those union workers, then the government is violating somebody's rights and abuses by the favored side inevitably follow.

Hooligan

[Kieran]

Originally posted by Airhead
It's not a question of whether you can take care of yourself, it's a question of safe work enviroments and a liveable wage. Conservatives generally have opposed every advancement in workers' rights for the past 100 years.It is one issue that clearly defines the POV of both sides- why toss out those same old tired Rush Limbaugh lines and dance around this one specific issue?

Now who's baiting whom?

Rush Limbaugh? C'mon, try harder.

The very reason there are unions in the first place is what you are discussing. The fact they protect people they should not should be obvious as well.

I'm not the one with the blinders on, pal.

[stenographer]

quote

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No word of a lie...

There was this restaurant in Sydney, Australia where you could eat your food off a naked woman.

It was closed down by....the health department on the grounds that it was unhygenic.



Ravs
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well come on, Ravs, makes perfect sense.  I mean, you couldn't trust in the woman's cleanliness .... unless you'd washed her yourself, of course.  

[ravells]

Hey! what a great way to convince restaurant goers to do the washing up before and afterwards!!

Ravs