|
Post by whiplash on Feb 2, 2008 8:08:40 GMT -5
I dont think its to late whip, but I will admit that we are sprinting towards the edge of the cliff with our eyes closed. This coming election may be the first of many nails in the coffin though. Socialism is very difficult to uproot once you have allowed it to take hold. And depending on who the next president is, we may just make a giant leap in the wrong direction, and it will be very difficult to take it back, if it is possible at all. Already more than half of the people in the country either pay no income taxes or pay peanuts because of the way the tax is graduated. How are these people to be convinced to vote for lower taxes and reductions in benefits/services?
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Feb 2, 2008 8:06:40 GMT -5
Glad to hear all that....I don't live in the states and it seems that reality is different than how it seems from reports and articles on the net! HOORAH! I'm glad to hear that your eyes have been opened.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Feb 1, 2008 17:18:00 GMT -5
CP, it's already too late.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Feb 1, 2008 13:39:48 GMT -5
In the report from the US department of Justice (not mine) it says that only 38% of convicted felons for drug possesion went to prison and about 25% got parol. Would they get parol for a serious crime?
"38% ... went to prison". Does this include or exclude those sentenced to jail? There is a difference.
I'm not going to dig into the document to try to understand exactly what they are saying. I think you are drawing the wrong conclusions though. Parol does not mean there is no incarceration, exactly the opposite. Parol is shortening the term from what the court imposed. So, yes people who commit serious crime often get parol.
The bottom line is: If you do not commit a serious crime or repeatedly commit "minor" crimes, you will not be charged with a felony, you will not be imprisoned, your voting rights will be unaffected.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Feb 1, 2008 13:12:16 GMT -5
The original statement that in the US you could be deprived of the right to vote for drinking and driving or use of marihuana even if you don't spend 1 day in jail or prison, very much stands.
Technically, this statement is correct; but it hardly ever happens in reality. This is a really good example of how your sources distort the truth.
Driving while drunk will only bring a felony charge if you have prior convictions or if there is serious injury or death resulting from your actions. Drunken driving is considered a serious crime in the US. Usually, a first offense with no harm to others would not be charged as a felony.
One explanation could be that this system is so broad so that authorities can choose who to deprive the vote from...ie black people.
The "authorities" have broad discretion so as to bring about justice, not to discriminate between classes of people.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Feb 1, 2008 9:42:09 GMT -5
The District Attorney, not the police, brings charges. He would charge both. It' s why your statistics show so many felony posession convictions.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Feb 1, 2008 6:45:45 GMT -5
I think you missed my point about multiple charges. The police don't go hunting for substance users. People who are charged with a second posession charge are usually those who had drugs on them when being arrested for a more serious crime. So if you are convicted of a second possesion charge it's probably comeing along with a conviction for armed robbery or some other felony. So, yes I do think that people convicted of the second charge should not be able to vote.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 31, 2008 11:31:00 GMT -5
Getting back to the crime statistics:
I talked to a friend of mine who is an Assistant District Attorney here. He told me that, by far, most posession convictions are in connection with other crimes. Example is a rapist is caught and happens to also have cocaine on him when arrested would have the felony posession charge tacked on.
He also referred me to the following:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possession of a Controlled Substance in Wisconsin - Penalties
Substance Offense Maximum Penalty
Marijuana 1st (Misdemeanor) 6 months in Jail / $1000 fine Marijuana 2nd (Felony) 3 1/2 years, $10,000
Cocaine 1st (Misdemeanor) 1 year in Jail, $5000 fine Cocaine 2nd (Felony) 3 1/2 years, $10,000
Methamphetamine 1st (Misdemeanor) 1 year in Jail, $5000 fine Methamphetamine 2nd (Felony) 3 1/2 years, $10,000
LSD (Acid) 1st (Misdemeanor) 1 year in Jail, $5000 fine LSD (Acid) 2nd (Felony) 3 1/2 years, $10,000
Heroin Felony 3 1/2 years, $10,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that with the exception of heroin it takes a second offense to be convicted for a felony.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 31, 2008 10:41:14 GMT -5
Here are some excerpts from their site. Tell me these guys are not Communists!
As great events, from financial crises to eruptions of militarism and war, break up the present state of class relations, the WSWS will provide a political orientation for the growing ranks of working people thrown into struggle.
The World Socialist Web Site insists, however, that the success of these struggles is inseparable from the growth in the influence of a socialist political movement guided by a Marxist world outlook.
The standpoint of this web site is one of revolutionary opposition to the capitalist market system.
The International Committee of the Fourth International intends to use this technology as a tool for the liberation of the working people and oppressed all over the world.
The World Socialist Web Site arises on the basis of a powerful political history. It represents the historical continuity of the political and theoretical struggle initiated by Leon Trotsky in 1923 ...
Perhaps you would prefer that I lable them "Marxist" rather than "Communist". They apparently wear that lable proudly.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 31, 2008 7:04:23 GMT -5
I'm not going to give any credence to things posted on commondream.org or the World Socialist Web Site.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 30, 2008 19:47:18 GMT -5
I think this will be my last post on the topic.
Do I think there is no corruption in government? NO Do I think there are no sweet deals for "friends"? NO Do I think there is no bending of the truth to propogandize the American people? NO
But I am not so cynical so as to believe that these things would sink to the level of the US going to war at the cost of XXX billions of dollars and the cost of American lives.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 30, 2008 17:16:15 GMT -5
Oh, so you think the war was started so that Halliburton could be hired to do the reconstruction? I thought it was to have peace and stability in the middle-east. I thought it was to unseat a tyrant who invaded two of his neighbor countries and killed hundreds of thousands of people. I guess you're just smarter than me.
What makes you think there was no competition and no oversight?
Believe me the worst customer on Earth is the US Government.
I have plenty of personal experience in no-bid goverment contract work. The reason it's no-bid is because the scope cannot be precisely defined. It's not like buying a fleet of automobiles.
There usually is competition. Companies are selected based upon their demonstrated abilities to get the job done. The contracts are usually cost plus fixed fee. That means the contractor is reimbursed for his direct cost and his overhead and receives a fixed fee even if the scope of the job increases. The fixed fee is usually tiny compared to the profits in private sector contract work. The oversight is horrendous. There are federal bean counters crawling over everything. The volumes of procurement regulations can fill a freight car. Everything is audited.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 30, 2008 16:18:11 GMT -5
He's a fuggin genius.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 30, 2008 16:11:36 GMT -5
Halliburton is not an "oil company" in the sense that Exxon, Chevron, and Shell are.
They are an energy services company. They own no wells, they don't refine, they don't sell petroleum products.
Now think about the economics of the situation and the insanity of the Lefty position.
The Lefty position is that GWB started the war to help his oil buddies, including Halliburton. By doing this he keeps oil flowing out of the middle-east.
THE BEST DAMN THING THAT COULD HAPPEN TO HALLIBURTON IS THAT THE OIL FROM THE MIDDLE-EAST IS CUT OFF!!!!!!! This would mean more exploration, more drilling, more equipment, more refineries; there would be a huge demand for everything Halliburton does.
This would also be great for Exxon, Mobil, and Shell. With the oil cut off the price of their products would skyrocket. This is a commodity industry; profits are a function of cost.
Yes, he made megabucks at Halliburton; but that's history. He has had no ties since leaving there. He could thumb his nose at them. But the bigger point is the aforementioned; no invasion of Iraq would be BETTER for Halliburton.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 30, 2008 15:16:27 GMT -5
TBS said:
We should agree that wars for the enrichment of the oil companies is a good thing because W. and Cheney (both heavily involved in the oil companies that benefit) tell you it is? We should believe them when they tell us that we're safer from foreign terrorism while they're busy supporting their cause financially and stimulating their recruitment?
This popular sentiment among the Left is a perfect example of demonization. They pound and pound over and over how Cheney and Bush are just fattening the wallets of their oil buddies.
Call me naive; but I don't think GWB needs to emperil the security of the nation in order to do that. There are a kazillion ways for the President of the United States to help his friends.
As to Cheney, you say he is heavily involved in the oil industry. Just how heavily involved?
Cheney began his political career as a congressional interm in 1969. That's 39 years ago. He won a congressional seat representing Wyoming and was reelected five times. He served in administrative capacities under Nixon and Ford and was the Secretary of Defense in the Bush Sr. cabinet.
With the election of Clinton in 1993 Cheney went to the private sector (not likely Bill would give him any kind of government job). Cheney was CEO of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000. BY THE WAY, HALLIBURTON IS NOT AN OIL COMPANY. Before that he spent a few years at the American Enterprise Institute.
The bottom line is that Dich Cheney spent 34 years in public service and only 5 in the private sector. I'm counting his two years with the American Enterprise Institute as "public". Upon leaving Halliburton to return as Vice President Cheney's investments in Haliburton were put into a fixed income trust. Cheney doesn't earn a dime from anything involving Halliburton.
RICHARD CHENEY IS NOT HEAVILY INVOLVED IN THE OIL INDUSTRY.
But the Lib's have done a great job demonizing him so that most dumbbells think he is tied to the oil industry.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 30, 2008 13:12:25 GMT -5
In general, it looks like the Eastern European countries are doing better than the Western European countries.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 30, 2008 12:33:45 GMT -5
You have the biggest percentage of illiterate people in the Western wolrd by far.Gitbliss, The US literacy rate is higher than many European countries, including Greece. 21 United Kingdom 99.0 [6] 21 United States 99.0 [7] 35 Tonga 98.9 36 Azerbaijan 98.8 36 Turkmenistan 98.8 38 Albania 98.7 38 Kyrgyzstan 98.7 38 Samoa 98.7 41 Trinidad and Tobago 98.6 42 Italy 98.5 43 Romania 98.4 [1] 44 Bulgaria 98.2 45 Croatia 98.1 46 Austria 98.0 47 South Korea 97.9 48 Greece 97.8 48 Mongolia 97.8 50 Spain 97.7 You are long on opinion and short on facts. This fact was given by Michael Moore in his documentary.
So, this is one of your sources of "fact"? ZZhenon very correctly pointed out that in the states if you are caught with marihuanna or driving under alcohol or convicted of any minnor crime and spend 1 day in jail, you are denied the right to vote! This was used to an even greater extend by Republicans in the crutial Floridal ellections when they used AfroAmerican name lists that have been convicted in other states in order to deny them vote in Florida.
More nonsense! It is only FELONS who are denied voting rights. Felonies are major crimes! Marijuana posession, DUI are not. Minor crimes are misdemeaners and don't affect voting rights. Your story about the out-of-state felony lists used by Republicans is pure fantasy. In all states the people who run the elections and monitor the polls on voting day are people from both parties who watch one another. No group of Republicans could influence how an election is run by any state. Levi, you should give Gitbliss lefty debate lessons. He's really hurting your cause.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 27, 2008 1:21:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Feb 4, 2008 7:11:32 GMT -5
You sound like GWB.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 25, 2008 12:47:48 GMT -5
The problem is that the inspectors never had full, unresticted access.
|
|