Jax Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 Only because of all the red tape. We need to dramatically overhaul and streamline the process.Isn't the whole point of the red tape to make it more certain that the conviction is correct? Do you believe that streamlining the execution process would not result in more false convictions? Or do you just not care if it does? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 So in that case, people without cars shouldn't have to pay for the roads, and people without kids shouldn't have to pay for public schools. And people who are not in favor of war wouldn't have to pay into the military budget. I don't see how anything like that could ever work. If taxes were voluntary, we'd most likely have to world's worst school system, military, and transportation system, not to mention lots of other problems.Niche is intentionally ignoring which group demands the police, courts, jails and invading armies. Poor people would be just fine with ditching that stuff. It is only used to oppress them anyway. I do so love it when the rich people cry victim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 So in that case, people without cars shouldn't have to pay for the roads, and people without kids shouldn't have to pay for public schools. And people who are not in favor of war wouldn't have to pay into the military budget. I don't see how anything like that could ever work. If taxes were voluntary, we'd most likely have to world's worst school system, military, and transportation system, not to mention lots of other problems.You're right, the reasoning doesn't always transfer perfectly between issues.For roads and other infrastructure, you have to charge user fees. That solves everything, including many problems with the existing systems. It's pretty straightforward.For schools, private institutions and vouchers from the federal level are my preference, the premise being that the education of my neighbor's kid will ultimately benefit me and also that because labor is mobile, the education of a kid in West Virginia will benefit me; that the kid is benefitted from my investment is of no concern.And if you read back through American history, there are many instances of wars being financially backed in no small part by philanthropists; that only stopped in the 20th century. And like vouchers, if you accept a premise that a formidable military protects your interests (whether it is actually sent to war or not), then there is a justification for funding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbigtex56 Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 From Click2Houston.com:PASADENA, Texas -- It could soon be illegal to protest in a Pasadena neighborhood after City Council passed the first of two votes needed to approve an ordinance, KPRC Local 2 reported.Residents upset by a large protest in their Pasadena neighborhood asked council members to pass an ordinance to prevent it from happening again.link to full articleWhere's the ACLU when you need them? Last I heard, Pasadena is still located in the United States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 Isn't the whole point of the red tape to make it more certain that the conviction is correct? Do you believe that streamlining the execution process would not result in more false convictions? Or do you just not care if it does?Innocent until proven guilty. It may be that stricter punishment would make juries think twice before passing down a guilty verdict in the first place.There will undoubtedly be cases of mistaken identity. And that does and will continue to suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memebag Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 Only because of all the red tape. We need to dramatically overhaul and streamline the process.Why? We're already killing innocent people. Why should we do more of that? Just to save money?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jax Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Maybe we should just get Niche to become our "Judge Dredd" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 It may be that stricter punishment would make juries think twice before passing down a guilty verdict in the first place.Yeah, we need a stricter punishment than the DEATH penalty we currently have. THEN, juries will take their oath seriously.Seriously, there are no words to express how ignorant that statement is. Rather than get myself banned for attempting to find the words to express how ignorant that statement is, maybe I'll just go play in one of the other threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fringe Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Isn't the whole point of the red tape to make it more certain that the conviction is correct? Do you believe that streamlining the execution process would not result in more false convictions? Or do you just not care if it does?The problem is that even convicted felons that are obviously Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fringe Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Yeah, we need a stricter punishment than the DEATH penalty we currently have. THEN, juries will take their oath seriously.Seriously, there are no words to express how ignorant that statement is. Rather than get myself banned for attempting to find the words to express how ignorant that statement is, maybe I'll just go play in one of the other threads.You haven't paid much attention to mid-eastern countries have you? A big argument I always hear is "even the mid-eastern muslim countries don't have the death penalty". True, they don't convict anyone to death in a courtroom. Instead they just torture people to death. Now I'm not implying we do the same but believe me there is a lot worse ways to die then by lethal injection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark F. Barnes Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 We really need to start a thread on the pros and cons of the death penalty to keep this thread on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fringe Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 We really need to start a thread on the pros and cons of the death penalty to keep this thread on topic.I agree. To heated of a subject. I apologize for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Why? We're already killing innocent people. Why should we do more of that? Just to save money??The idea is to kill those that aren't innocent, and quickly so that they are not even more a burden on society than they've already made themselves. It's not a perfect system and there will be mistakes, but I can't envision an effective criminal justice system that is perfect.Yeah, we need a stricter punishment than the DEATH penalty we currently have. THEN, juries will take their oath seriously.Given severe enough consequences, I believe it to be a distinct possibility.Rather than get myself banned for attempting to find the words to express how ignorant that statement is, maybe I'll just go play in one of the other threads.You may PM me if you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 If taxes were voluntary, we'd most likely have to world's worst school system, military, and transportation system, not to mention lots of other problems.Well ... have you looked around lately? Our schools are pretty bad. Our military is kick a** but certain reports say the soldiers don't have the armor they need ... as for transportation? Look at our citywide rail system.Looks like we're paying a whole lot in taxes, but not getting our money's worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Well ... have you looked around lately? Our schools are pretty bad. Our military is kick a** but certain reports say the soldiers don't have the armor they need ... as for transportation? Look at our citywide rail system.Looks like we're paying a whole lot in taxes, but not getting our money's worth.Nothing wrong with my daughter's school, bad schooling starts AT HOME ! Military is getting the armor they need on a daily basis, I see it FIRST HAND, about $7 to $10 million being shipped out everyday going east on I-10. Citywide rail will NEVER be a reality, be happy with the busses and expanded roads that we have and are getting, I am.We are getting off topic, I want more info on this plainclothes officer that witnessed the whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Nothing wrong with my daughter's school, bad schooling starts AT HOME ! Military is getting the armor they need on a daily basis, I see it FIRST HAND, about $7 to $10 million being shipped out everyday going east on I-10. Citywide rail will NEVER be a reality, be happy with the busses and expanded roads that we have and are getting, I am.We are getting off topic, I want more info on this plainclothes officer that witnessed the whole thing.Disagree with you on most of those topics, but I agree that that topics need a separate thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 From Click2Houston.com:PASADENA, Texas -- It could soon be illegal to protest in a Pasadena neighborhood after City Council passed the first of two votes needed to approve an ordinance, KPRC Local 2 reported.Residents upset by a large protest in their Pasadena neighborhood asked council members to pass an ordinance to prevent it from happening again.link to full articleWhere's the ACLU when you need them? Last I heard, Pasadena is still located in the United States.I don't think there's anything wrong with a city passing this type of ordinance to keep protests out of residential neighborhoods. If they want to protest go to City Hall, or a public park. Going to Joe Horn's front door is not going to change the outcome, and if anything, proved to be detrimental to Quannell 10's cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memebag Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 I don't think there's anything wrong with a city passing this type of ordinance to keep protests out of residential neighborhoods. If they want to protest go to City Hall, or a public park. Going to Joe Horn's front door is not going to change the outcome, and if anything, proved to be detrimental to Quannell 10's cause.Sidewalks, even in residential neighborhoods, are public property. No matter how inefficient sidewalk protests are, they can't be banned by the City of Pasadena. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Sidewalks, even in residential neighborhoods, are public property. No matter how inefficient sidewalk protests are, they can't be banned by the City of Pasadena.But can the City of Pasadena require that protests occur in some areas and not others? (Note to meme: this question is not an argument.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark F. Barnes Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 You can also be arrested for disturbing the peace if a formal complaint is filed and people are asked to disperse from in front of the residence, and if they do not, they can be arrested, plain and simple. You see, you have the right to assembly, but not necessarily on the sidewalk in front of a person's house. The person who owns the house also has the right to file a formal complaint that they are being disturbed. There is a big gray area for a judgement call by authorities as to what entails a disturbance. Just like you have the right to play your stereo as loud as you want in your own home, but the minute you have someone call the cops and complain, then they have the right to come and tell you to turn it down. Then if you refuse, you will go to jail, you can count on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 I think this legislature is short-sighted and reactionary, but I do not live in that part of Texas. I do think it is raises a lot of legal issues that it probably didn't intend and now Pasadena is going to find itself dragged through litigation.Well, you get the politicians you vote for ... or don't for as is the case in most of the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDeb Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 people without cars shouldn't have to pay for the roadsGenerally, they don't. If you don't buy gasoline or own a car, you pay very, very little for roads.But can the City of Pasadena require that protests occur in some areas and not others? (Note to meme: this question is not an argument.)The federal government does it re: abortion clinic protests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuroAztlan Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 I know .. .but no one wants to start a new thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuroAztlan Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 I know .. .but no one wants to start a new thread.Thank god. Most of the posts here are way too verbose, talk about needing to edit it down some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLWM8609 Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Thank god. Most of the posts here are way too verbose, talk about needing to edit it down some.You come onto an off topic discussion forum and expect not to have to read long posts? I'd rather see some verbose posts than a bunch of "IMHO, FWIW" and other such acronyms. Now, someone get us back on topic, quick! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crunchtastic Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Thank god. Most of the posts here are way too verbose, talk about needing to edit it down some. Everyone's an editor....if you want sound bites, there's talk radio. If some people take more words than others to express themselves, I don't have a problem with that on an internet forum dedicated to the exchange of ideas. Quality, yes. Quantity, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Thank god. Most of the posts here are way too verbose, talk about needing to edit it down some.Then how do you propose we state our arguments? Here we can elaborate (or not) to make our points. it's not we have Chris Baker's finger hovering over the "disconnect" button when we're starting to get on a roll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Anyone wonder why a poster who has been a member for exactly 19 DAYS is telling all of us how to post on HAIF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memebag Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 Thank god. Most of the posts here are way too verbose, talk about needing to edit it down some.Is it too short?Is it too long?Will readers spit and curse?The only pathThat never fails:Always post in verse.Burma Shave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.