Tightening The Noose On Liberty

[PaintMyHouse]

Because you, especially as the state, are supposed to be better than they are. It's not an eye for an eye.

Wrong. I don't believe in harming people. I also KNOW that once a person has shown a propensity to resort to violence they will CONTINUE to do so. Thus, the only alternative to your method (murder, presumably) is to lock them up. They have shown what they do. We just choose to not let them do it to us.

Were you a thinking person you could understand that very simple concept.

You want a police-state, I do not. Even criminals have rights in my real version of America. Let's hope it stays that way, even for your sake.

No, Uncle Leftie.....it's you communists/fascists/Liberals who have and will perpetuate a police state.

I simply want justice for the victims and the criminals.
You know what justice is, don't you?

Something that is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve, but we try anyway, and should. It's the liberal way. Your hang 'em out back is not.

The Liberal way?

But that's been proven to be a failure, and an extreme danger to the innocent.

1. The legal community, largely if not entirely, Liberal/Progressive, played a major role in wreaking havoc in the black community. Starting in the sixties, ordinary people, black and white, watched in stupefaction as liberal social reformers came in and jettisoned thousands of years of human knowledge to rewrite criminal laws and government welfare policies. Liberals living in monochromatically white suburbs or doorman buildings in the city said “Let’s try these new ideas that sound really cool, like school busing and deemphasizing prison!” Coulter, "Mugged," chapter six
   1. “In the 2008 election cycle, the industry (read 'lawyers') contributed a massive $234 million to federal political candidates and interests , 76 percent of which went to Democratic candidates and committees.” Lawyers / Law Firms | OpenSecrets
   2. “Trial lawyers are holding steady as one of the Democratic Party's biggest sources of campaign contributions,…” Routine Maintenance

Yet, here you are stating that we should continue with the failures....

The U.S. Is proof that Liberalism works. It's a liberal nation, Korean girl.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Imprisonment for criminals!!

Right you are!!



Too bad Liberals don't....and therefore increase the danger to innocent Americans.

Fascism, A form of government that seeks to control the masses = the same as Conservatism.

In fact, just the opposite.

Do you know you're lying...or has it become second nature?

What did I say that was a lie? I think you are deflecting again to avoid talking about the truth.

She's not interested in truth or debate at all. Only spamming the anti-liberal crap she hears.

"...spamming the anti-liberal crap she hears."

Well....OK...you convinced me you need a lesson.

1. Carter-appointed judge Norma Shapiro “ is one of the worst offenders among that influential cadre of [Liberal] federal judges who have substituted the ACLU's prisoners' rights wish list for the Bill of Rights and have trifled with public safety concerns. …single-handedly decriminalized property and drug crimes in the City of Brotherly Love….And in the past 18 months alone, 9,732 arrestees, out on the streets on pre-trial release because of her prison cap, were arrested on second charges, including 79 murders, 90 rapes, 701 burglaries, 959 robberies, 1,113 assaults, 2,215 drug offenses and 2,748 thefts…
2. .Activist (read 'Liberal') judges such as Shapiro and Justice assert that prison crowding violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments. But there is no empirical evidence to substantiate this assertion. In every study of the subject, the widely believed negative effects of crowding - violence, program disruption, health problems and so on - are nowhere in evidence.” Activist Judges Earn Dunce Caps For Their Prison Caps
   1. In 1992, black youths were nine times more likely to be murdered than white youths. Liberals lied, black kids died.

3. "There is an activist (read 'Liberal') judge behind each of the most perverse failures of today's justice system: violent offenders serving barely 40 percent of their sentences; 3.5 million criminals, most of them repeat offenders, on the streets on probation and parole; 35 percent of all persons arrested forviolent crime on probation, parole or pretrial release at the time of their arrest." (Article cited.)



Now, what were you mumbling about "not interested in truth or debate at all."

Everything I post is true and accurate.

Everything.

Appreciate the timely example of my point.
Just more random spam with no context whatsoever.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Imprisonment for criminals!!

Right you are!!



Too bad Liberals don't....and therefore increase the danger to innocent Americans.

Fascism, A form of government that seeks to control the masses = the same as Conservatism.

In fact, just the opposite.

Do you know you're lying...or has it become second nature?

What did I say that was a lie? I think you are deflecting again to avoid talking about the truth.

She's not interested in truth or debate at all. Only spamming the anti-liberal crap she hears.

you noticed, huh?

Oh yeah. No doubt she's in her bunker with the walls covered in articles and pictures with red string connecting them all. She sits franticly sorting them on the floor looking for more clues to the liberal conspiracy. This forum is probably to only contact she has with others. Sad really.

 

[nuhuh]

Fascism, A form of government that seeks to control the masses = the same as Conservatism.

In fact, just the opposite.

Do you know you're lying...or has it become second nature?

What did I say that was a lie? I think you are deflecting again to avoid talking about the truth.

She's not interested in truth or debate at all. Only spamming the anti-liberal crap she hears.

you noticed, huh?

Oh yeah. No doubt she's in her bunker with the walls covered in articles and pictures with red string connecting them all. She sits franticly sorting them on the floor looking for more clues to the liberal conspiracy. This forum is probably to only contact she has with others. Sad really.

And she makes enemies as naturally as soap makes bubbles.

 

[westwall]

Gee....I put this in post #92....

"It must be said that Obama is not the first Liberal/Progressive/Democrat to champion the criminal rather than the law-abiding citizen."


Must be stipulated....no one disagreed.
Just patently obvious, I guess.

Just more of your fascism, criminals having no rights. In your world it's rights for you but not the other guy...

Ummm, criminals have already shown they don't care about the rights of others so why exactly should we care about theirs?

Because you, especially as the state, are supposed to be better than they are. It's not an eye for an eye.

Wrong. I don't believe in harming people. I also KNOW that once a person has shown a propensity to resort to violence they will CONTINUE to do so. Thus, the only alternative to your method (murder, presumably) is to lock them up. They have shown what they do. We just choose to not let them do it to us.

Were you a thinking person you could understand that very simple concept.

You want a police-state, I do not. Even criminals have rights in my real version of America. Let's hope it stays that way, even for your sake.

No. I want a safer State. Violent criminals BELONG in prison. Fewer violent people on the streets, fewer police. A concept so simple a moron could understand it.

Why can't you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

In fact, just the opposite.

Do you know you're lying...or has it become second nature?

What did I say that was a lie? I think you are deflecting again to avoid talking about the truth.

She's not interested in truth or debate at all. Only spamming the anti-liberal crap she hears.

you noticed, huh?

Oh yeah. No doubt she's in her bunker with the walls covered in articles and pictures with red string connecting them all. She sits franticly sorting them on the floor looking for more clues to the liberal conspiracy. This forum is probably to only contact she has with others. Sad really.

And she makes enemies as naturally as soap makes bubbles.

"And she makes enemies...."

So....one of us decides on what is wrong and what is right based on a fear of offending????

Glad that's not me, you panty waist.

 

[nuhuh]

What did I say that was a lie? I think you are deflecting again to avoid talking about the truth.

She's not interested in truth or debate at all. Only spamming the anti-liberal crap she hears.

you noticed, huh?

Oh yeah. No doubt she's in her bunker with the walls covered in articles and pictures with red string connecting them all. She sits franticly sorting them on the floor looking for more clues to the liberal conspiracy. This forum is probably to only contact she has with others. Sad really.

And she makes enemies as naturally as soap makes bubbles.

"And she makes enemies...."

So....one of us decides on what is wrong and what is right based on a fear of offending????

Glad that's not me, you panty waist.

I enjoy the way you get upset at the mild insults and avoid the questions like the plague. You really are possibly the worst person in the world to defend conservatism.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Just more of your fascism, criminals having no rights. In your world it's rights for you but not the other guy...

Ummm, criminals have already shown they don't care about the rights of others so why exactly should we care about theirs?

Because you, especially as the state, are supposed to be better than they are. It's not an eye for an eye.

Wrong. I don't believe in harming people. I also KNOW that once a person has shown a propensity to resort to violence they will CONTINUE to do so. Thus, the only alternative to your method (murder, presumably) is to lock them up. They have shown what they do. We just choose to not let them do it to us.

Were you a thinking person you could understand that very simple concept.

You want a police-state, I do not. Even criminals have rights in my real version of America. Let's hope it stays that way, even for your sake.

No. I want a safer State. Violent criminals BELONG in prison. Fewer violent people on the streets, fewer police. A concept so simple a moron could understand it.

Why can't you?

Because violent and mentally ill people often do not belong in prison, they belong is secured hospitals. They end up and in jail because they aren't properly treated, and that is our fault as a society.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

She's not interested in truth or debate at all. Only spamming the anti-liberal crap she hears.

you noticed, huh?

Oh yeah. No doubt she's in her bunker with the walls covered in articles and pictures with red string connecting them all. She sits franticly sorting them on the floor looking for more clues to the liberal conspiracy. This forum is probably to only contact she has with others. Sad really.

And she makes enemies as naturally as soap makes bubbles.

"And she makes enemies...."

So....one of us decides on what is wrong and what is right based on a fear of offending????

Glad that's not me, you panty waist.

I enjoy the way you get upset at the mild insults and avoid the questions like the plague. You really are possibly the worst person in the world to defend conservatism.

Being as she is nothing like a conservative, that is entire true. I wonder if there really are any conservatives left? There certainly aren't any here.

 

[nuhuh]

Ummm, criminals have already shown they don't care about the rights of others so why exactly should we care about theirs?

Because you, especially as the state, are supposed to be better than they are. It's not an eye for an eye.

Wrong. I don't believe in harming people. I also KNOW that once a person has shown a propensity to resort to violence they will CONTINUE to do so. Thus, the only alternative to your method (murder, presumably) is to lock them up. They have shown what they do. We just choose to not let them do it to us.

Were you a thinking person you could understand that very simple concept.

You want a police-state, I do not. Even criminals have rights in my real version of America. Let's hope it stays that way, even for your sake.

No. I want a safer State. Violent criminals BELONG in prison. Fewer violent people on the streets, fewer police. A concept so simple a moron could understand it.

Why can't you?

Because violent and mentally ill people often do not belong in prison, they belong is secured hospitals. They end up and in jail because they aren't properly treated, and that is our fault as a society.

I agree 100% but I believe the issue that Political Chic brought up concerned only non-violent crimes.

 

[westwall]

Ummm, criminals have already shown they don't care about the rights of others so why exactly should we care about theirs?

Because you, especially as the state, are supposed to be better than they are. It's not an eye for an eye.

Wrong. I don't believe in harming people. I also KNOW that once a person has shown a propensity to resort to violence they will CONTINUE to do so. Thus, the only alternative to your method (murder, presumably) is to lock them up. They have shown what they do. We just choose to not let them do it to us.

Were you a thinking person you could understand that very simple concept.

You want a police-state, I do not. Even criminals have rights in my real version of America. Let's hope it stays that way, even for your sake.

No. I want a safer State. Violent criminals BELONG in prison. Fewer violent people on the streets, fewer police. A concept so simple a moron could understand it.

Why can't you?

Because violent and mentally ill people often do not belong in prison, they belong is secured hospitals. They end up and in jail because they aren't properly treated, and that is our fault as a society.

Correct, though i think you would find it hard for the ACLU to support mental hospitals for the criminally insane to be "nice". I would rather be in prison then doped up and tossed in a corner to drool my life away. But, to each their own I guess.

 

[jillian]

She's not interested in truth or debate at all. Only spamming the anti-liberal crap she hears.

you noticed, huh?

Oh yeah. No doubt she's in her bunker with the walls covered in articles and pictures with red string connecting them all. She sits franticly sorting them on the floor looking for more clues to the liberal conspiracy. This forum is probably to only contact she has with others. Sad really.

And she makes enemies as naturally as soap makes bubbles.

"And she makes enemies...."

So....one of us decides on what is wrong and what is right based on a fear of offending????

Glad that's not me, you panty waist.

I enjoy the way you get upset at the mild insults and avoid the questions like the plague. You really are possibly the worst person in the world to defend conservatism.

she's too busy offended that she is isn't respected for her self-professed intellect.

 

[jillian]

Because you, especially as the state, are supposed to be better than they are. It's not an eye for an eye.

Wrong. I don't believe in harming people. I also KNOW that once a person has shown a propensity to resort to violence they will CONTINUE to do so. Thus, the only alternative to your method (murder, presumably) is to lock them up. They have shown what they do. We just choose to not let them do it to us.

Were you a thinking person you could understand that very simple concept.

You want a police-state, I do not. Even criminals have rights in my real version of America. Let's hope it stays that way, even for your sake.

No. I want a safer State. Violent criminals BELONG in prison. Fewer violent people on the streets, fewer police. A concept so simple a moron could understand it.

Why can't you?

Because violent and mentally ill people often do not belong in prison, they belong is secured hospitals. They end up and in jail because they aren't properly treated, and that is our fault as a society.

Correct, though i think you would find it hard for the ACLU to support mental hospitals for the criminally insane to be "nice". I would rather be in prison then doped up and tossed in a corner to drool my life away. But, to each their own I guess.

the problem with that is that criminal law requires intent and you can't form an intent when you're mentally ill.

it's a quandary. but no... people who are criminally insane should be medicated and kept in hospitals. it's not like the old days when they were savaged by their environs.

 

[nuhuh]

Wrong. I don't believe in harming people. I also KNOW that once a person has shown a propensity to resort to violence they will CONTINUE to do so. Thus, the only alternative to your method (murder, presumably) is to lock them up. They have shown what they do. We just choose to not let them do it to us.

Were you a thinking person you could understand that very simple concept.

You want a police-state, I do not. Even criminals have rights in my real version of America. Let's hope it stays that way, even for your sake.

No. I want a safer State. Violent criminals BELONG in prison. Fewer violent people on the streets, fewer police. A concept so simple a moron could understand it.

Why can't you?

Because violent and mentally ill people often do not belong in prison, they belong is secured hospitals. They end up and in jail because they aren't properly treated, and that is our fault as a society.

Correct, though i think you would find it hard for the ACLU to support mental hospitals for the criminally insane to be "nice". I would rather be in prison then doped up and tossed in a corner to drool my life away. But, to each their own I guess.

the problem with that is that criminal law requires intent and you can't form an intent when you're mentally ill.

it's a quandary. but no... people who are criminally insane should be medicated and kept in hospitals. it's not like the old days when they were savaged by their environs.

Wait a second, thanks to Ronald Wilson Reagan, they are being savaged by their environs again, but this time as homeless people.

 

[jillian]

You want a police-state, I do not. Even criminals have rights in my real version of America. Let's hope it stays that way, even for your sake.

No. I want a safer State. Violent criminals BELONG in prison. Fewer violent people on the streets, fewer police. A concept so simple a moron could understand it.

Why can't you?

Because violent and mentally ill people often do not belong in prison, they belong is secured hospitals. They end up and in jail because they aren't properly treated, and that is our fault as a society.

Correct, though i think you would find it hard for the ACLU to support mental hospitals for the criminally insane to be "nice". I would rather be in prison then doped up and tossed in a corner to drool my life away. But, to each their own I guess.

the problem with that is that criminal law requires intent and you can't form an intent when you're mentally ill.

it's a quandary. but no... people who are criminally insane should be medicated and kept in hospitals. it's not like the old days when they were savaged by their environs.

Wait a second, thanks to Ronald Wilson Reagan, they are being savaged by their environs again, but this time as homeless people.

I don't think I'd go there. There have been homeless people long before and long since Ronnie.

Doesn't it even say in the bible that "there will always be poor among you"?

I think it's our obligation to mitigate against that as much as possible. And no doubt Ronnie's policies sucked (although not nearly as badly as the current wingnuttery) but I don't think he's responsible for all ills.

 

[westwall]

Wrong. I don't believe in harming people. I also KNOW that once a person has shown a propensity to resort to violence they will CONTINUE to do so. Thus, the only alternative to your method (murder, presumably) is to lock them up. They have shown what they do. We just choose to not let them do it to us.

Were you a thinking person you could understand that very simple concept.

You want a police-state, I do not. Even criminals have rights in my real version of America. Let's hope it stays that way, even for your sake.

No. I want a safer State. Violent criminals BELONG in prison. Fewer violent people on the streets, fewer police. A concept so simple a moron could understand it.

Why can't you?

Because violent and mentally ill people often do not belong in prison, they belong is secured hospitals. They end up and in jail because they aren't properly treated, and that is our fault as a society.

Correct, though i think you would find it hard for the ACLU to support mental hospitals for the criminally insane to be "nice". I would rather be in prison then doped up and tossed in a corner to drool my life away. But, to each their own I guess.

the problem with that is that criminal law requires intent and you can't form an intent when you're mentally ill.

it's a quandary. but no... people who are criminally insane should be medicated and kept in hospitals. it's not like the old days when they were savaged by their environs.

Agreed. However, there is a way to involuntarily commit mentally deranged people who will harm themselves or others if left to do so.

 

[westwall]

No. I want a safer State. Violent criminals BELONG in prison. Fewer violent people on the streets, fewer police. A concept so simple a moron could understand it.

Why can't you?

Because violent and mentally ill people often do not belong in prison, they belong is secured hospitals. They end up and in jail because they aren't properly treated, and that is our fault as a society.

Correct, though i think you would find it hard for the ACLU to support mental hospitals for the criminally insane to be "nice". I would rather be in prison then doped up and tossed in a corner to drool my life away. But, to each their own I guess.

the problem with that is that criminal law requires intent and you can't form an intent when you're mentally ill.

it's a quandary. but no... people who are criminally insane should be medicated and kept in hospitals. it's not like the old days when they were savaged by their environs.

Wait a second, thanks to Ronald Wilson Reagan, they are being savaged by their environs again, but this time as homeless people.

I don't think I'd go there. There have been homeless people long before and long since Ronnie.

Doesn't it even say in the bible that "there will always be poor among you"?

I think it's our obligation to mitigate against that as much as possible. And no doubt Ronnie's policies sucked (although not nearly as badly as the current wingnuttery) but I don't think he's responsible for all ills.

I agree with you to a point, but Reagan did do away with the funding that kept the violent ones in the institutions. The vast majority of men who are homeless, would be homeless no matter what. They either choose the life of a vagabond or are mentally ill equipped to live a "normal" life. More power to them. There are plenty of groups and organizations who will help them.

There are some of them however, who truly need to be locked away forever.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What Obama has done to the DoJ is proof that he never belonged as the leader of the American nation.


"John Christian Adams... is an American attorney and former United States Department of Justice official who has accused the department of racial bias in many affairs, ...."
J. Christian Adams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


8. J. Christian Adams, in his best seller, "Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department," wrote the following:
" I testified under oath that pervasive and open hostility exists within the Justice Department towards race-neutral enforcement of voting rights laws….the Justice Department’s unwillingness to enforce voting laws equally and in a racially fair way.


Patriots of all races gave their lives to enshrine racial equality in this country, via the 14th and 15th Amendments and then during the Civil Rights movement. The beneficiaries of these sacrifices should not be limited, either. The Department should undergo a searching examination as to why they are unwilling to enforce voting laws in a racially fair fashion and change course.


Inside and outside the DOJ, some will snicker at the notion that the provisions of Section 5 should be used to protect whites and Asians when they are in the minority in a covered jurisdiction. Please snicker so the rest of America can hear you. It’s time you engage the debate, or else you are about to lose it badly without ever having spoken up."
PJ Media

From someone who completely ignores what George Bush did to the DOJ you should change your name to Politically Clueless

Why don't you look into the U.S. Attorney firings to start, or the Military Commissions Act, or the attempted appointment of Harriet Meyers to the Supreme Court or NSA warrantless wiretapping or the Unilateral Executive doctrine, asserting the right to open U.S. Mail, the attempt to appoint U.S. Attorneys without Senate confirmation, Seriously, if you want to examine someone messing with our justice systems, start there.

But here you are ignoring what Obama's DOJ has done or what the Obama Administration has done as a whole. If you're so concerned with the integrity of the DOJ or of any presidential administration, perhaps you should be outraged at any instance where they engage in corrupt practices such as this.

But hey, you have that Bush card stowed away nice and tight just in case you are pinned down.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Wait....who said that?
Mussolini?
Hitler?
Stalin?

The people of America, who elected him, four times...

You might want to incorporate this into what passed for thinking from you, Uncle Leftie....

No democracy is possible without an unbiased press. That is the reason for the first amendment.

You are a hot mess swirling with every talk radio meme and talking point imaginable about liberals.
It's not so much that the press is biased as much as it is the perception your ideology leaves you with. If you are at the furthest point to the right then you can only look left.
So naturally everything you see seems to be to your ideological left.
I suggest you leave the house and go have some drinks with some liberal friends and lighten up.

Funny how none of you are debating PC's argument on its merits.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Stop bloviating and take the quiz.

You can run, but you can't hide.

Well I'm glad you brought that up. You've been deflecting this entire thread bringing up non essential points and refusing to answer questions put to you. Your mind is so open the wind whistles through it.

Ten question quiz......give it a try.

Sure, right after you answer all the questions posed to you.

I think she has. I've read every page of this thread up until this point. It's quite clear you are dissatisfied with the answers you received.