Politics of SB Members?

[cobaltbabe]

MikeFerrara once bubbled...

I'm in favor of crime control. I don't claim to know the best way to do that but criminals just don't seem to be afraid.

Why would they be afraid. If they get caught they get to go to jail which has free food, tv, workout rooms ect. I really think the punishment should fit the crime. A life for a life. You steal your get your hand taken. Maybe they would think twice about their actions. Granted if the government decided to do that prisoner rights would come in so we as a free nation are darned if we do and darned if we don't.

 

[Green_Manelishi]

Why is there no "social conservative, fiscal liberal"?
Not that I am ... I am simply asking.

Socially conservative. Fiscally conservative. White, balding, Christian (Baptist), "Yankee", male. Married. 2 grown sons,
4 grandchildren. Wife is also fiscally and socially conservative.

I despise paying an income or sales tax. I own guns and knives
and know how to use them to defend myself or others. The
US should bail out of the UN, tell all other states to ".... off"
and send no guns, butter or bread to any of the ungrateful
ingrates.

Every branch of 'gubmint' has WAY overstepped its Constitutional
authority whenever it suited their purposes. And because they
are all busy screwing each of us in the US, it is not likely they
will call each other to task.

Be well, Dive safe.

 

[FredT]

Just not popular with the PC crowd.

First eliminate all laws dealing with "victimless" crimes and "possession of anything" crimes.

Second allow any citizen to use deadly force to stop a felony in progress. (MS has the second law, needs to deal with the first one though.)

There are way too few cops and way too many bleeding heart judges to make criminals afraid. There are plenty of pissed off citizens.

BTW if the crime is not "severe enough" to warrant the enforcemnt method, then it shouldn't be a crime. Politicians should not exempt from "correction" either.

FT

 

[MikeFerrara]

Well, the other problem is the number of people who are convicted of crimes and it's later found out they didn't do it.

Have they ever convicted the right person in a rape case? Statistically speaking you'd think they'd have a better average if they guessed. ok I'm exagerating but...

A prof of mine once told me that the law didn't need to be logical, it only needed to be consistant within it's own logic. I find that it's neither. I also find a legal, illegal, right and wrong don't align the way you'd expect.

Some of that might have to do with the fact that law makers and law keepers sometimes have their own agenda. The goal of a law maker may not be to punish the wrong and the goal of a law keeper may not be to find the truth. Convictions count for a prosecuter or a detective even if they have the wrong person. The amount of points awarded is the same.

Passing laws that make certain people happy help a law maker even if it's a bad law.

And BTW how the heck can judges be aligned with a political party. Has any one noticed how often the supreme court has voted right streight down party lines? Do republicans learn to read differently than democrats? They must think we're stupid and you know what? They must be right.

Come on. We have a constitution that was supposed to be written for the common person yet we need a fleet of judges to tell us what it means which of course depends on what party you belong to. I think Johny Carson could have had a ball with this one.

What do they call it when they piggy back an unrelated piece of legislation into another. You know like having a bill to outlaw explosives in schools (which every one is for) that has some small print at the bottom which is a piece of legislation that effects grandparants rights or something. This IS CROOKED legal or not. It's also very funny that the public allows it.

Did they ever get that line item veto through? Very important.

Oh, and just about any one can run for office but you need to have millions to have a chance to win. Of course there are always contributions. But why would some one contribute to your campaigh? Because your going to such a good job right? Wanna buy a bridge? Now by the time you get elected you owe so many people so much that you work for them full time. You want to get re-elected? better not disapoint them.

Sorry the money to run needs to come from some place else.


They need another spot on the voting ticket also. A spot that says "none of the above". If "none of the above" wins, you start over. What is this......"You have a choice, my cousin Vinnie or my cousin Guito".... stuff?

Oh, I got off topic there. We can't decide how to punish a criminal unless we know which party passed the law and the politics of the prosecutor and if the detective is up for promotion or is running for mayor. These are all critical details that should be disclosed to every jury member.

And now days if you hurt some one protecting your family, yourself or your home, there's a good chance you'll spend more time in Jail than the crook. That's especially true if you used a gun because they are very unpopular these days. If the prosecutor can hang you he'll be very popular...well...if he's a democrat.

Another one I like is that you can do anything with a car you want. You can speed, kill, maim...whatever...as long as you haven't had a drink. It's more illegal to be a good driver at 0.08 than a killer behind the weel having never had a drink. And of course it's been proven that if you have a drink and run into something with your car it's caused by the booz and there's no chance at all that your just a lousy driver.

ok really, we know the stats on alchahol induced accidents but how many are caused by people who are just lousy drivers all the time. It wouldn't be hard to be a better driver (drunk or sober)than half the people I passed on the road on the way to Missouri last weekend. If you get killed by a sober lousy driver won't you be just as dead? Why don't they spend as much time or effort to find lousy drivers? Nope, they only want em if they're drunk. I could see it now...Lousy driver check points all over on Friday nights and holidays. Actually the really great thing is that you could catch just as many on a monday morning.

the lousy drivers are easy to find. All you have to do is watch em and they can't hide because they're bad all the time and it shows. A drunk can drive streight when he thinks some one is looking. To get the one's that blow 0.08 you need to pull em over and smell their breath. Now come on, which is more work?

Sorry, bad driving should be illegal. Who cares what the cause is? I love it...witness..."He lost control and ran into the tree"....passer by...."Oh poor man, is he ok?"...witness..."I smell booze"...passer by..."Hang him!, lock him up! Throw away the key!"

Note: Not condoning drunk driving at all just making fun of how we do things in general.

 

[cobaltbabe]

but there does have to be a middle ground. With the inmate population increasing daily there has to be something done. Laws are way to laxed IMO.

 

[FredT]

Canada just spent 1 BILLION dollars to harass and register the honest folk. This is supposed to reduce crime...

FT

 

[MikeFerrara]

FredT once bubbled...
Canada just spent 1 BILLION dollars to harass and register the honest folk. This is supposed to reduce crime...

FT

No it won't reduce crime but it makes the liberals feel good and it creates jobs. LOL

 

[GQMedic]

the right to arm bears..(And bear arms!)

 

[JustinW]

well we can hope that the liberals stop to smell the flowers underwater. Let us all hope that FrankenKerry doesn't get elected. It would be terrible to have to endure a term of liberal contradictions, the last few years have been refreshing since the libs have been booted out of the whitehouse. The WhiteHouse is a formal place, we can't have flip flops in the oval office.

 

[Scubaguy62]

Look, all politicians, liberals and conservative alike are more crooked than Forest Gump's back. Plain and simple. They are only interested in telling you what's wrong and who's to blame for it, and their options to help the situation are as fallacious as to say there is no hole in the ozone layer. So what are we to do? Simple; pick the lesser of two evils.

I agree with a lot of what Mike said on his post. Who are we kidding? Do we actually believe any of the liberals, or the conservative can, or will write a bill or a law that won't represent their party's (or pockets) best interest? Please! Not one politician has admitted to wrong doing in the interest of truth, yet in many courtrooms there stands a sign that says "those who labor here seek only the truth;" what a gimmick. The fact is that while not supposed to be, law makers, law keepers, and especially law enforcement officials are "above the law." So in a paradoxial way, they shouldn't even be writing any of it. Conservative politicians speak of the need of greater moral values, against abortion, and condem gay people (yet the daughter of our vice president is a confessed homosexual), in an effort to persuade a certain group of people to cast their vote in their favor. However, conservative extremists are also the same who bomb abortion clinics, kill doctors, and tell women they don't have the right to decide if they should terminate their pregnancy, even if it was as a result of rape or incest. Go figure! Where do we draw the line between what's moral and what's just? If those who enforce the law do it in a prejudicial way, should those who are sent to jail be automatically stripped of their rights to pursue an appeal, especially if the prejudice which gave rise to their conviction caused an innocent person to go to jail? Some people will argue they should. Again, go figure!

So, for me the picking of the lesser of two evils rests on this thought.....690 billion dollar deficit which did not exist in 2000 and the need to appoint a Supreme Court Justice who ordered a re-count (coverup) when one wasn't needed, in the state in which your brother is the governor.

Just my .02