Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

justice department will no longer pursue mandatory minimum sentences for low-level drug offenders


  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#31 Guest_CarolinaBlacknBlueblood_*

Guest_CarolinaBlacknBlueblood_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 August 2013 - 10:24 AM

a step in the right direction

fiscal conservatives should wholly support this btw

I do support it! I just dont support the process. We are a nation that respects law and representative government. The end doesn't justify the means.

#32 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hug it chug it football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,658 posts
  • LocationGreensboro

Posted 14 August 2013 - 12:34 PM

I do support it! I just dont support the process. We are a nation that respects law and representative government. The end doesn't justify the means.

 

it sounds like you don't know much about the history and use of executive orders and you're just mad that obummer is using them because glen beck told you it's bad

 

here is a list of executive orders (limited to chester arthur because i didn't feel like doing two separate screen captures.)

 

 

 

ScreenShot2013-08-14at12853PM_zps47edcaa

 

 

 

granted obama isn't yet done with his term, but he has the least amount of executive orders signed since grover goddamn cleveland was sitting on his first term in the white house. it's important not to let the executive branch overstep its boundaries of power, but let's not pretend this is in any way a new phenomenon.



#33 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,973 posts

Posted 14 August 2013 - 02:26 PM

The executive branch declaring that they will refuse to prosecute offenders of an existing law is absolutely the equivalent of passing a new law making that same action legal.

 

A law is nothing more than words written on a piece of paper unless said law is enforced.  The enforcement is what makes a law valid.

 

But then again, I would not exect you to be able to comprehend this.

 

you wouldn't exect (sic) me to be able to comprehend something so fuging ignorant as your post? well hold on to your fat ass, bro

 

The executive branch declaring that they will refuse to prosecute offenders of an existing law is absolutely the equivalent of passing a new law making that same action legal.

 

i'm going to need you to show your work here because this statement requires quite the logical leap

 

A law is nothing more than words written on a piece of paper unless said law is enforced.  The enforcement is what makes a law valid.

 

prosecutorial discretion: two words that you've apparently never heard in tandem before in your life. two words that set fire to your nonsense.

 

now waddle away; you've got some googling to do

 

But then again, I would not exect you to be able to comprehend this.

 

i understand that you would not exect (sic) me to be able to comprehend the dumb poo that comes out of your mouth but i grew up in the south and i've dealt with plenty of goofy fugs in my time so i think i can handle it



#34 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,738 posts

Posted 15 August 2013 - 08:41 AM

countries-with-the-most-prisoners-per-10

 



#35 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,092 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 15 August 2013 - 09:02 AM

countries-with-the-most-prisoners-per-10

I used to be proud of how the USA would stand up for the human rights of those unfortunate enough to be born in oppressive backwards thinking nations. 

 

These days it makes me cringe to see American diplomats and politicians try and lecture other nations on human rights violations with our obscene incarceration rates and "legalized" torture techniques. 

 

Techniques, that until President Bush brought them back, had not been permitted for over one hundred years.



#36 Creep59

Creep59

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 587 posts
  • LocationHatteras Canyon

Posted 15 August 2013 - 11:59 AM

Theyre finally admitting that they cant afford to incarcerate so many citizens for non violent offenses - sort of admitting it that is.



#37 Creep59

Creep59

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 587 posts
  • LocationHatteras Canyon

Posted 15 August 2013 - 12:05 PM

There are approximately 2 million inmates in state, federal and private prisons throughout the country. According to California Prison Focus, “no other society in human history has imprisoned so many of its own citizens.” The figures show that the United States has locked up more people than any other country: a half million more than China, which has a population five times greater than the U.S. Statistics reveal that the United States holds 25% of the world’s prison population, but only 5% of the world’s people. From less than 300,000 inmates in 1972, the jail population grew to 2 million by the year 2000. In 1990 it was one million. Ten years ago there were only five private prisons in the country, with a population of 2,000 inmates; now, there are 100, with 62,000 inmates. It is expected that by the coming decade, the number will hit 360,000, according to reports.

What has happened over the last 10 years? Why are there so many prisoners?

“The private contracting of prisoners for work fosters incentives to lock people up. Prisons depend on this income. Corporate stockholders who make money off prisoners’ work lobby for longer sentences, in order to expand their workforce. The system feeds itself,” says a study by the Progressive Labor Party, which accuses the prison industry of being “an imitation of Nazi Germany with respect to forced slave labor and concentration camps.”

The prison industry complex is one of the fastest-growing industries in the United States and its investors are on Wall Street. “This multimillion-dollar industry has its own trade exhibitions, conventions, websites, and mail-order/Internet catalogs. It also has direct advertising campaigns, architecture companies, construction companies, investment houses on Wall Street, plumbing supply companies, food supply companies, armed security, and padded cells in a large variety of colors.”

 

 

http://globalresearc...of-slavery/8289



#38 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,535 posts

Posted 15 August 2013 - 12:26 PM

 

 

granted obama isn't yet done with his term, but he has the least amount of executive orders signed since grover goddamn cleveland was sitting on his first term in the white house. it's important not to let the executive branch overstep its boundaries of power, but let's not pretend this is in any way a new phenomenon.

 

Most executive orders are also very benign and beneficial. Usually administrative stuff or fluffly commissions.

 

http://en.wikipedia....s_13489–Present

 

Interestingly when marijuana was labeled as a Schedule I drug there was a specific clause that states the president can remove it from the list via executive order. Obama claims it is a congressional issue and is either wrong or lying.



#39 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,163 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 15 August 2013 - 01:23 PM

this is as much about no money as it is doing the right thing.

 

i might add that backwards state of Texas has started this trend around 2007 in terms of reform vs prison. enjoy.



#40 Guest_CarolinaBlacknBlueblood_*

Guest_CarolinaBlacknBlueblood_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 August 2013 - 09:52 PM

it sounds like you don't know much about the history and use of executive orders and you're just mad that obummer is using them because glen beck told you it's bad

 

here is a list of executive orders (limited to chester arthur because i didn't feel like doing two separate screen captures.)

 

 

 

ScreenShot2013-08-14at12853PM_zps47edcaa

 

 

 

granted obama isn't yet done with his term, but he has the least amount of executive orders signed since grover goddamn cleveland was sitting on his first term in the white house. it's important not to let the executive branch overstep its boundaries of power, but let's not pretend this is in any way a new phenomenon.

http://www.thedailyb...using-them.html  

 

I agreed with candidate Obama on Presidential powers and executive orders. But then again, i disagree with BHO only because he is black, right?



#41 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hug it chug it football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,658 posts
  • LocationGreensboro

Posted 15 August 2013 - 09:53 PM

http://www.thedailyb...using-them.html  

 

I agreed with candidate Obama on Presidential powers and executive orders. But then again, i disagree with BHO only because he is black, right?

 

what are you even saying?



#42 Guest_CarolinaBlacknBlueblood_*

Guest_CarolinaBlacknBlueblood_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 August 2013 - 03:24 PM

what are you even saying?

You threw out the same old BS that I am only against executive orders to byoass congress because it's BHO doing them. That's a lot to assume about someone you've never met. Candidate Obama stood against expansion of executive power, as do I. President Obama, however, loves governing by Presidential fiat. I was against them when Bush was in office and when BHO is in office. I wasn't around in the Aurthor administration, or I would have been against them then also.

#43 Guest_CarolinaBlacknBlueblood_*

Guest_CarolinaBlacknBlueblood_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 August 2013 - 03:26 PM

You threw out the same old BS that I am only against executive orders to byoass congress because it's BHO doing them. That's a lot to assume about someone you've never met. Candidate Obama stood against expansion of executive power, as do I. President Obama, however, loves governing by Presidential fiat. I was against them when Bush was in office and when BHO is in office. I wasn't around in the Aurthor administration, or I would have been against them then also.

*bypass....editing function not working on the app atm.

#44 Guest_CarolinaBlacknBlueblood_*

Guest_CarolinaBlacknBlueblood_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 August 2013 - 03:32 PM

you wouldn't exect (sic) me to be able to comprehend something so fuging ignorant as your post? well hold on to your fat ass, bro


i'm going to need you to show your work here because this statement requires quite the logical leap


prosecutorial discretion: two words that you've apparently never heard in tandem before in your life. two words that set fire to your nonsense.

now waddle away; you've got some googling to do


i understand that you would not exect (sic) me to be able to comprehend the dumb poo that comes out of your mouth but i grew up in the south and i've dealt with plenty of goofy fugs in my time so i think i can handle it

Manditory sentence laws don't allow for prosecutorial discretion. I know thats the point and why the laws need to be changed, but going around congress is not the way to do it. It expands presidential power. In the long run we will all be regretting it.

And could we stop making fun of people for typos? It makes you look stupid and childish.

#45 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,958 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 16 August 2013 - 06:47 PM

well hold on to your fat ass, bro
it


I would rather go through life slightly overweight than fuging mentally retarted.

You are the poster child for why cousins should never have kids...they turn out to be morons like you.

Please do not EVER have kids...the world really can't stand another offspring from that dried up mud puddle that your family calls a gene pool.

Now go play in traffic.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.