Another reason against the death penalty

[Hawkeye2j]

DNA testing exonerates Florida man convicted of 1983 murder
Anthony Caravella, 41, spent 26 years in prison for a rape and slaying. He was 15 years old when charged.
March 25, 2010|By Paula McMahon
Reporting from Fort Lauderdale, Fla. — Final DNA test results exonerate a Florida man who has served 26 years in prison -- more than half his life -- for a rape and murder, attorneys said Wednesday.

Broward County prosecutors will ask a judge Thursday to throw out Anthony Caravella's conviction and life sentence, freeing him of restrictions imposed since he was temporarily released from prison Sept. 10.


Ads by Google
the Kiplinger newsletter
Kiplinger forecasts the trends you follow for business decisionmaking
Kiplinger.com
1 Tip for a Flat Belly :
Cut down 3 lbs Belly Fat every week just by using this 1 Weird Old Tip.
www.TheDietSolutionProgram.com
Advertisement


"I never had any doubt that Anthony was innocent," said Diane Cuddihy, the public defender who worked for nine years to free him.

"The shocking thing is that an innocent man can be convicted like this."

Caravella was 15 and had an IQ of 67, well below normal, when he was charged with the Nov. 5, 1983, murder of Ada Cox Jankowski, 58, in Miramar, Fla.

"It's over," Caravella said in a phone call minutes after he learned of the DNA results. "I'm OK now."

Broward County prosecutors took the unusual step of temporarily releasing Caravella six months ago when earlier tests seemed to clear him. But he had to wear a GPS ankle monitor and obey a curfew while prosecutors did more forensic testing.

"I feel good, man, because I've never been free all this time," Caravella said. "When they let me walk out that [prison] door, I was free but I wasn't free because it was all hanging over my head. Now I'll be really free."

He turns 42 on Saturday, the first birthday he will celebrate in freedom since he was 15.

Prosecutor Carolyn McCann, who handled the new appeal since 2001, said Wednesday that a second independent lab had ruled out Caravella as the source of genetic evidence found on the victim.

pmcmahon@tribune.com
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/25/nation/la-na-dna-florida25-2010mar25

[CommonCents]

I'm against the death penalty myself, but I respect the right of the people of a given state to decide what's best for them.

[Hawkeye2j]

I'm against the death penalty myself, but I respect the right of the people of a given state to decide what's best for them.

I understand the desire for it, but until we get a perfect judicial system I don't see how we can morally accept it.

[doctordog]

As sad as that story is, here is a few reasons to keep the death penalty:

1190

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/tr/1/17/Ted_Bundy_4.jpg

http://www.mybadpad.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/jefrey-dahmer.jpg

[Hawkeye2j]

Like I said, I fully understand that some of these bastards deserved it, however until our system is perfect it should be done away with.

[Krome]

My personnal view is that the legal system has to be more righteous than the criminal.

For one group of people to be able to legally kill is immoral.

Personally though if I was 30 years old and had the option of death or the rest of my life in prison I would take death to get it over with.

[Libertarian94]

Like I said, I fully understand that some of these bastards deserved it, however until our system is perfect it should be done away with.


There is no 'perfect system' and to expect one is foolish... Quite frankly some people cant be rehabilitated to follow our laws so why bother with them? It cheaper to kill these bastards then it is to give them life sentences. Let the fuckers burn in hell.

http://static.open.salon.com/files/tedbundy1262801167.jpg

[CommonCents]

I understand the desire for it, but until we get a perfect judicial system I don't see how we can morally accept it.

We don't have to morally accept it. The decision whether a state has or does not have the death penalty, is one of the few choices that respects the US Constitution. The constitution allows for individual states to decide issues like this, rather than the federal government dictating what everyone must follow.

That's the way it's supposed to be, and how it should be. If you don't like the death penalty, than move to a state where they do not have it.

[Hawkeye2j]

We don't have to morally accept it. The decision whether a state has or does not have the death penalty, is one of the few choices that respects the US Constitution. The constitution allows for individual states to decide issues like this, rather than the federal government dictating what everyone must follow.

That's the way it's supposed to be, and how it should be. If you don't like the death penalty, than move to a state where they do not have it.
Actually it has been proven that it is cheaper to give them life in prison. And if I don't like the death penalty I would work to get it repealed not move elsewhere.

[doctordog]

Actually it has been proven that it is cheaper to give them life in prison. And if I don't like the death penalty I would work to get it repealed not move elsewhere.

If it has as you say, prove it.:thumbsup:

[Hawkeye2j]

If it has as you say, prove it.:thumbsup:
Life in prison is much cheaper. By far. In any case where prosecutors seek the death penalty, the cost is much higher than the cost of a case where it isn't on the table. This includes the costs of lifetime incarceration. Study after study has reached this conclusion.

The enormous expenses kick in from the moment the prosecutor decides to seek the death penalty. They apply whether or not there is a conviction, let alone a death sentence or execution.

For example, here is what one state report concluded:
“The study counted death penalty case costs through to execution and found that the median death penalty case costs $1.26 million. Non-death penalty cases were counted through to the end of incarceration and were found to have a median cost of $740,000. For death penalty cases, the pre-trial and trial level expenses were the most expensive part, 49% of the total cost. The investigation costs for death-sentence cases were about 3 times greater than for non-death cases. The trial costs for death cases were about 16 times greater than for non-death cases ($508,000 for death case; $32,000 for non-death case).” (Kansas: Performance Audit Report: Costs Incurred for Death Penalty Cases: A K-GOAL Audit of the Department of Corrections)

The legal process is much more complex in death penalty cases, because the punishment sought is irreversible- the idea is not to execute innocent people. Whether or they support the death penalty, most people do not want to see innocent people executed making the costs extremely high.

Some specific factors in the cost are:

• more pre-trial time will be needed to prepare: cases typically take a year to come to trial
• more pre-trial motions will be filed and answered
• more experts will be hired
• twice as many attorneys will be appointed for the defense, and a comparable team for the prosecution
• jurors will have to be individually quizzed on their views about the death penalty, and they are more likely to be sequestered
• two trials instead of one will be conducted: one for guilt and one for punishment
• the trial will be longer: a cost study at Duke University estimated that death penalty trials take 3 to 5 times longer than typical murder trials
Of course, after conviction and sentencing, there will be at least one appeal, while inmates are held in the high and expensive security of death row.

[Tom Paine]

If it has as you say, prove it.:thumbsup:

Im pretty sure its been proven, and its only because of appeals.

Which i doubt are also factored in with the life in prison.

[Tom Paine]

Life in prison is much cheaper. By far. In any case where prosecutors seek the death penalty, the cost is much higher than the cost of a case where it isn't on the table. This includes the costs of lifetime incarceration. Study after study has reached this conclusion.

The enormous expenses kick in from the moment the prosecutor decides to seek the death penalty. They apply whether or not there is a conviction, let alone a death sentence or execution.

For example, here is what one state report concluded:
“The study counted death penalty case costs through to execution and found that the median death penalty case costs $1.26 million. Non-death penalty cases were counted through to the end of incarceration and were found to have a median cost of $740,000. For death penalty cases, the pre-trial and trial level expenses were the most expensive part, 49% of the total cost. The investigation costs for death-sentence cases were about 3 times greater than for non-death cases. The trial costs for death cases were about 16 times greater than for non-death cases ($508,000 for death case; $32,000 for non-death case).” (Kansas: Performance Audit Report: Costs Incurred for Death Penalty Cases: A K-GOAL Audit of the Department of Corrections)

The legal process is much more complex in death penalty cases, because the punishment sought is irreversible- the idea is not to execute innocent people. Whether or they support the death penalty, most people do not want to see innocent people executed making the costs extremely high.

Some specific factors in the cost are:

• more pre-trial time will be needed to prepare: cases typically take a year to come to trial
• more pre-trial motions will be filed and answered
• more experts will be hired
• twice as many attorneys will be appointed for the defense, and a comparable team for the prosecution
• jurors will have to be individually quizzed on their views about the death penalty, and they are more likely to be sequestered
• two trials instead of one will be conducted: one for guilt and one for punishment
• the trial will be longer: a cost study at Duke University estimated that death penalty trials take 3 to 5 times longer than typical murder trials
Of course, after conviction and sentencing, there will be at least one appeal, while inmates are held in the high and expensive security of death row.

Yeap the only cheap part in the process is the killing part.

[doctordog]

Im pretty sure its been proven, and its only because of appeals.

Which i doubt are also factored in with the life in prison.

So it is only cheaper because of the lawyers and the liberal court system we have..... hmmm. It appears to be a management issue. I still saw no link proving it to be cheaper. One would think the king of links could do better than that.

[Pat]

Actually it has been proven that it is cheaper to give them life in prison. And if I don't like the death penalty I would work to get it repealed not move elsewhere.
It's not life in prison that is cheaper, it is court costs.
Apples and oranges.

[Hawkeye2j]

It's not life in prison that is cheaper, it is court costs.
Apples and oranges.
That is true. But if one's life is on the line don't you think they should have a few appeals?

[Pat]

That is true. But if one's life is on the line don't you think they should have a few appeals?
One is plenty.

[Libertarian94]

That is true. But if one's life is on the line don't you think they should have a few appeals?


Deathrow inmates get several appeals... I think it lasts about 10years in most states.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

As sad as that story is, here is a few reasons to keep the death penalty:

[ATTACH]1190[/ATTACH

Didn't kill anyone. Didn't actually commit any really greivious crime. Using a vague 'caused the death' opens up a line of justification I don't wish to give the government.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/tr/1/17/Ted_Bundy_4.jpg

http://www.mybadpad.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/jefrey-dahmer.jpg

Two mentally deranged individuals, a couple of the few who's crimes are 100% verifiable yet you would be executing obviously mentally ill people.
You also, upon their death, greatly decrease your chances of clearing up any crimes they commited that you don't know about. Dahmer is now being considered a prime suspect in the Walsh murder, but its all subjective because we can't exactly ask him now that he's dead.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

A death penalty gives the government the opportunity to murder oppostion.

But simpler put, any representative democracy purporting to be of 'We The People' cannot then be allowed to murder one of its People under any circumstances.

There are now 13 (unless I've missed one) confirmed cases of innocent citizens being murdered by the state. Citizens. Murdered

Haven't we shifted the power away from the citizens far enough?

[Moby]

I'm not against the death penalty at all. I am against people claiming to be Christians that support it. Jesus would not approve.

[doctordog]

I'm not against the death penalty at all. I am against people claiming to be Christians that support it. Jesus would not approve.

Don't read the bible much huh? Eye for an Eye is clearly stated.;)

[foxbaron]

The problem with the death penalty is that it takes too long to implement it and it is appealable usually just on procedure and not necessarily on new facts or evidence.

Perhaps if we passed a law that required all those convicted in a death penalty case to submit DNA evidence for comparison we could do away with the controversy about whether it is justified.

I'll agree to give up the death penalty the day that life in prison actually means life in prison except for child molesters, they must die, period.

ANd don't give me the argument that it is not a deterent. I don't care. It is justice for a wrong they committed and it ensures that they will never commit a similar crime again. It is the least we owe the victim(s) and their families. It shpuld be carried out within a year of senetencing not 10-20 years after the crime. By the time they carry it out no one even remembers why except for the family of the victim and no one really cares.

[doctordog]

Didn't kill anyone. Didn't actually commit any really greivious crime. Using a vague 'caused the death' opens up a line of justification I don't wish to give the government.





Two mentally deranged individuals, a couple of the few who's crimes are 100% verifiable yet you would be executing obviously mentally ill people.
You also, upon their death, greatly decrease your chances of clearing up any crimes they commited that you don't know about. Dahmer is now being considered a prime suspect in the Walsh murder, but its all subjective because we can't exactly ask him now that he's dead.

Ridiculous argument, if anything we should slow their death down and take weeks to kill them.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

Don't read the bible much huh? Eye for an Eye is clearly stated.;)

That's the Old Testament. Christians follow Christ and the New Testament.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

Ridiculous argument, if anything we should slow their death down and take weeks to kill them.

Murder them or study them to find out how to prevent it in the future?
Murder them of use them to close the books on other murders?
Murder them or have them locate victms nobody knew about?
Murder them and apologize the 13 times later when it's proved to have been a mistake?

You can be the murderer, I'll take the smarter route.

[doctordog]

Murder them or study them to find out how to prevent it in the future?
Murder them of use them to close the books on other murders?
Murder them or have them locate victms nobody knew about?
Murder them and apologize the 13 times later when it's proved to have been a mistake?

You can be the murderer, I'll take the smarter route.

Is that why you are for killing babies? Thanks for being smarter poster boy.:thumbsup:

[doctordog]

That's the Old Testament. Christians follow Christ and the New Testament.

Those are progressive christians not true conservatives, no sale.

[Libertarian94]

That's the Old Testament. Christians follow Christ and the New Testament.


Leviticus 20:9

"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him."

Actually most christians follow the new and old testament and new testament...It appears their God has no problem with death as a punishment.

Romans 6:23

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

And it appear the new testament has no problem with death as a punishment.

Nice try.:thumbsup:

[Smurf-Herder]

I'm against "Death" altogether.

........ but we all eventually have to be recycled. :D

[Hawkeye2j]

Leviticus 20:9

"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him."

Actually most christians follow the new and old testament and new testament...It appears their God has no problem with death as a punishment.

Romans 6:23

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

And it appear the new testament has no problem with death as a punishment.

Nice try.:thumbsup:
This passage is not speaking of a state execution. The death referred to is without eternal life which is the reward for the just in God's kingdom.

[Revere]

I'm against the death penalty. It would be largely moot were it not for the liberal propensity for early parole and the inevitable recidivism.

[Kanadesaga]

I'm pro-death. Especially for child rapists where there is DNA evidence. and for treason and sedition. and I consider selling your Congresssional vote to the highest bidder treason.

[Hawkeye2j]

I'm pro-death. Especially for child rapists where there is DNA evidence. and for treason and sedition. and I consider selling your Congresssional vote to the highest bidder treason.
DNA can only prove innocence. It can not prove guilt.

[Kanadesaga]

DNA can only prove innocence. It can not prove guilt.

If I have a dead 8 year old girl and your DNA is some bodily orifice, you're guilty. DNA proves guilt everyday.

Actually, where the hell do you get that idea?!?!?

[Hawkeye2j]

If I have a dead 8 year old girl and your DNA is some bodily orifice, you're guilty. DNA proves guilt everyday.

Actually, where the hell do you get that idea?!?!?
Wrong. When they do a DNA test it usually generates several matches. Therefore it can't narrow it to one person. If however it does not generate a match for you, you are completely exonerated.

[Kanadesaga]

Wrong. When they do a DNA test it usually generates several matches. Therefore it can't narrow it to one person. If however it does not generate a match for you, you are completely exonerated.


when it comes back 1/7 trillion odds are against you.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

Is that why you are for killing babies? Thanks for being smarter poster boy.:thumbsup:

I'm actually anti-abortion, but am also pro-choice, you know consistent in my empowering citizens and not empowering government.

Kinda like how I can be tough on crime, but anti-vice laws and is reflective in my stance on the death penalty.

Consistency, something you and your ilk don't practice.

[doctordog]

I'm actually anti-abortion, but am also pro-choice, you know consistent in my empowering citizens and not empowering government.

Kinda like how I can be tough on crime, but anti-vice laws and is reflective in my stance on the death penalty.

Consistency, something you and your ilk don't practice.

Consistency? LMAO! Kill all the babies you choose but never kill a serial rapist, murderer, or child abuser. Scary!

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

Leviticus 20:9

"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him."

Actually most christians follow the new and old testament and new testament...It appears their God has no problem with death as a punishment.

Romans 6:23

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

And it appear the new testament has no problem with death as a punishment.

Nice try.:thumbsup:

This passage is not speaking of a state execution. The death referred to is without eternal life which is the reward for the just in God's kingdom.

Not an expert so I'll just have to go with Hawkeye on this one.
The reply to my reply is all good an well, tho incorrect as Hawkeye has shown, but also doesn't actually address my post whatsoever. The passage quoted in the post I replied to was from the old testament as I pointed out.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

Consistency? LMAO! Kill all the babies you choose but never kill a serial rapist, murderer, or child abuser. Scary!

While completely ignoring the 13, 14 innocent citizens murdered by the state.

You so-called Libertarian/Tea Partiers sure holler about big government until it suits your ideology.

Your principles are only truly your principles if you stick behind them when they're inconvenient as opposed to only when they're convenient.

A trait that's becoming apparent in the Tea Party. A party of special interest groups of one.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

I'm actually anti-abortion, but am also pro-choice, you know consistent in my empowering citizens and not empowering government.

Kinda like how I can be tough on crime, but anti-vice laws and is reflective in my stance on the death penalty.

Consistency, something you and your ilk don't practice.

Consistency? LMAO! Kill all the babies you choose but never kill a serial rapist, murderer, or child abuser. Scary!

Speaking of consistency, you consistency cannot read or comprehend what you read so I bolded it for you. Sorry if the words are too big.

[Revere]

The individual is the elemental minority.

[doctordog]

Speaking of consistency, you consistency cannot read or comprehend what you read so I bolded it for you. Sorry if the words are too big.

Pro choice? If you choose to Kill? give me a break and quit riding the fence panty man.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

Pro choice? If you choose to Kill? give me a break and quit riding the fence panty man.

I'm not surprised you didn't understand anti-abortion since its such a big word but I would've thought a Libertarian/Tea Party Lip Servicier such as you could understand the word 'choice'.
Guess not.
You know, Sesame Street has a forum where you could go until your vocabulary measures up.

[doctordog]

I'm not surprised you didn't understand anti-abortion since its such a big word but I would've thought a Libertarian/Tea Party Lip Servicier such as you could understand the word 'choice'.
Guess not.
You know, Sesame Street has a forum where you could go until your vocabulary measures up.

Right to choose is no different the deciding to kill a guy in the electric chair. Either man up or don't, I could care less. All your insults and deflection do not change the fact the you are talking out of your ass. You advocate murder of babies just not criminals, we understand.:thumbsup:

[Libertarian94]

While completely ignoring the 13, 14 innocent citizens murdered by the state.

You so-called Libertarian/Tea Partiers sure holler about big government until it suits your ideology.

Your principles are only truly your principles if you stick behind them when they're inconvenient as opposed to only when they're convenient.

A trait that's becoming apparent in the Tea Party. A party of special interest groups of one.

:lmao2: You just implied tea partiers are the same as libertarians... Where have you been for the last year?:lmao2:

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

Right to choose is no different the deciding to kill a guy in the electric chair. Either man up or don't, I could care less. All your insults and deflection do not change the fact the you are talking out of your ass. You advocate murder of babies just not criminals, we understand.:thumbsup:

Yeah, blah blah blah Troll Lite.
Keep up that Tea Party new tradition y'all learned from Rove to project your own idiocy then attack it.

You know, wiki could help you out on those words you didn't understand. The concepts you can't grasp are, unfortunately, more a matter of your lack of reading comprehension reflected in your diatribe - I suggest some remedial courses.

Nice sprinking of base vulgarism, you do the recess playground proud.

[doctordog]

Yeah, blah blah blah Troll Lite.
Keep up that Tea Party new tradition y'all learned from Rove to project your own idiocy then attack it.

You know, wiki could help you out on those words you didn't understand. The concepts you can't grasp are, unfortunately, more a matter of your lack of reading comprehension reflected in your diatribe - I suggest some remedial courses.

Nice sprinking of base vulgarism, you do the recess playground proud.

Now you are just being boring, I hear your monkey calling you back to the graveyard, maybe you two can share a banana even if you aren't hungry.:lmao2:

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

:lmao2: You just implied tea partiers are the same as libertarians... Where have you been for the last year?:lmao2:

No, I stated (no implications there whatsoever) them as adjoined since they are in this matter.

Or are you going to tell me the Libertarian as it stands right now, isn't the original stopping face of the Tea Partiers as they vacated the GOP and centrist Democratic party. As such, many of the original Libertarian values of citizen above all other things has been compromised since no old school Libertarian would ever support the death penalty.

I've been watching for the last year, YOU?

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

Now you are just being boring, I hear your monkey calling you back to the graveyard, maybe you two can share a banana even if you aren't hungry.:lmao2:

You got nothing, hunh.

That's okay, I'll wait.
God, not yet ANOTHER monkey reference.......you dare to say anything about BORING?:lmao2:

You need some fresh terms.

[Libertarian94]

Yeah, blah blah blah Troll Lite.
Keep up that Tea Party new tradition y'all learned from Rove to project your own idiocy then attack it.

You know, wiki could help you out on those words you didn't understand. The concepts you can't grasp are, unfortunately, more a matter of your lack of reading comprehension reflected in your diatribe - I suggest some remedial courses.

Nice sprinking of base vulgarism, you do the recess playground proud.


How about instead of bitching at each other explain how the situations are different.:)

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

How about instead of bitching at each other explain how the situations are different.:)

Uhm......use that little roller on the mouse and go look.
the bitching was is his attempt at debate engagement without actually having an explanation.

Since you've weighed in without weighing in, how about your explaination?

[Kanadesaga]

You got nothing, hunh.

That's okay, I'll wait.
God, not yet ANOTHER monkey reference.......you dare to say anything about BORING?:lmao2:

You need some fresh terms.

Fresh he don't do. Ruminants, on the other hand....

[doctordog]

You got nothing, hunh.

That's okay, I'll wait.
God, not yet ANOTHER monkey reference.......you dare to say anything about BORING?:lmao2:

You need some fresh terms.

You just need to be honest that you advocate murder of babies but not criminals but instead you insist on lying about what you just posted. Go find you dealer as he has tainted your weed.

[doctordog]

Fresh he don't do. Ruminants, on the other hand....

More from kkkande the racist. We didn't pull your string cheerleader.

[Kanadesaga]

More from kkkande the racist. We didn't pull your string cheerleader.


baa aa baa aa baa aa

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

You just need to be honest that you advocate murder of babies but not criminals but instead you insist on lying about what you just posted. Go find you dealer as he has tainted your weed.

I love people like you, blithely ignorant of the fact that anyone can go back 6 or 7 posts and read for themselves.

If you're gonna lie, try to make it less easy for people to discover.:lmao2:

Otherwise, you've just insulted everyone's ability to read on this board.

[doctordog]

I love people like you, blithely ignorant of the fact that anyone can go back 6 or 7 posts and read for themselves.

If you're gonna lie, try to make it less easy for people to discover.:lmao2:

Otherwise, you've just insulted everyone's ability to read on this board.

And you are a liar. Pro choice means you advocate murder, end of story.

[doctordog]

baa aa baa aa baa aa

Is that how you say I love in sheep?:lmao2:

Sorry, IIIIIII""""MMMM not iinnnnnnterrrrressted!:lmao2:

[Kanadesaga]

Is that how you say I love in sheep?:lmao2:

Sorry, IIIIIII""""MMMM not iinnnnnnterrrrressted!:lmao2:


You would know better than I :lmao2:

[doctordog]

You would know better than I :lmao2:

Judging from your post, you already know.:thumbsup:

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

And you are a liar. Pro choice means you advocate murder, end of story.

Ah, so you get to define it then.
Nice for you in that little world of one you live in.

Safe to say, I use the terms agreed upon by all the rest of the world. In that world choice means to choose.

Enjoy your little world.

[Libertarian94]

No, I stated (no implications there whatsoever) them as adjoined since they are in this matter.

Or are you going to tell me the Libertarian as it stands right now, isn't the original stopping face of the Tea Partiers as they vacated the GOP and centrist Democratic party. As such, many of the original Libertarian values of citizen above all other things has been compromised since no old school Libertarian would ever support the death penalty.

I've been watching for the last year, YOU?

A breath of fresh air the first legitimate response I have gotten in a long while on this forum, thank you. Im saying there are a portion of people who claim they are Libertarians but are really just pissed off conservatives. How has the Libertarian Party's values been compromised? Libertarianism is still Libertarianism no matter how many GOPers claim they are Libertarian. Most would support this as a state issue, which it is. Also I think for you to expect everyone to be a carbon copy of Libertarianism is unrealistic at best.

[Kanadesaga]

Judging from your post, you already know.:thumbsup:

You're the one who interpreted it, so you must know.

[doctordog]

Safe to say, I use the terms agreed upon by all the rest of the world. In that world choice means to choose.

Enjoy your little world.

So when it comes to babies you choose death! (your words) When it comes to pedophiles, rapist, murderers and child abusers you choose life. We heard you the first time.:thumbsup:

[doctordog]

You're the one who interpreted it, so you must know.

I asked you to translate, but as usual the racist lies.

[Kanadesaga]

I am pro-death, babies, convicts, what else you got?

[Kanadesaga]

I asked you to translate, but as usual the racist lies.


That's funny coming from a bigoted, homophobic xenophobe like you.

[doctordog]

I am pro-death, babies, convicts, what else you got?

At least we agree 50% of the time, can't hope for much more.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

A breath of fresh air the first legitimate response I have gotten in a long while on this forum, thank you. Im saying there are a portion of people who claim they are Libertarians but are really just pissed off conservatives. How has the Libertarian Party's values been compromised? Libertarianism is still Libertarianism no matter how many GOPers claim they are Libertarian. Most would support this as a state issue, which it is. Also I think for you to expect everyone to be a carbon copy of Libertarianism is unrealistic at best.

I'm just expecting one of two things to happen, the first did years ago which drove me from the party during Clinton's first administration.

1) The Libertarian Party will shift from its identity to garner more voters in an attempt to gain elections (which they've done in the past).

2) The GOP will just adopt the more trendy Libertarian philosophies and hijack any significant voting block the Libertarian has gained much like they've done to Perot and Teddy Roosevelt.

As to expecting everyone to be a carbon copy, this is the one of the problems of political party. If it isn't a really close carbon copy then its not reflective and that carbon copy being unrealistic makes the political party itself a lie. A lie not needed for true representative democracy.

[Libertarian94]

Uhm......use that little roller on the mouse and go look.
the bitching was is his attempt at debate engagement without actually having an explanation.

Since you've weighed in without weighing in, how about your explaination?


Ok from which perspective do you want me to weigh in as?

Pro choice: The fetus is not yet human being where as the convict is and the humans right to life is very important.

Pro Life: The unborn baby has not be convicted of a capital offense and condemned to death by a jury of his peers. The baby is innocent the criminal is not.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

So when it comes to babies you choose death! (your words) When it comes to pedophiles, rapist, murderers and child abusers you choose life. We heard you the first time.:thumbsup:

I guess Libel isn't too far from lying, so its not surprising it comes natural to you.

What part of anti-abortion did you not understand?
What part of the dynamics of a government killing its citizens did you not catch?
What part of the number of 14 innocent citizens murdered did you miss?

That's right, all of it.

Next.

[doctordog]

I guess Libel isn't too far from lying, so its not surprising it comes natural to you.

What part of anti-abortion did you not understand?
What part of the dynamics of a government killing its citizens did you not catch?
What part of the number of 14 innocent citizens murdered did you miss?

That's right, all of it.

Next.

Still in denial, seek help, keep me in the loop on your progress,:thumbsup:

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

Ok from which perspective do you want me to weigh in as?

Pro choice: The fetus is not yet human being where as the convict is and the humans right to life is very important.

Pro Life: The unborn baby has not be convicted of a capital offense and condemned to death by a jury of his peers. The baby is innocent the criminal is not.

Then weigh in.

As a libertarian I would expect you to be pro-choice and anti-death penalty.

[Libertarian94]

I'm just expecting one of two things to happen, the first did years ago which drove me from the party during Clinton's first administration.

1) The Libertarian Party will shift from its identity to garner more voters in an attempt to gain elections (which they've done in the past).

2) The GOP will just adopt the more trendy Libertarian philosophies and hijack any significant voting block the Libertarian has gained much like they've done to Perot and Teddy Roosevelt.

3)As to expecting everyone to be a carbon copy, this is the one of the problems of political party. If it isn't a really close carbon copy then its not reflective and that carbon copy being unrealistic makes the political party itself a lie. A lie not needed for true representative democracy.


1&2)And neither of those will change the idea of Libertarianism they will just change the party of Libertarianism.

3) I have to disagree with you there a political party is a general grouping trying to get similar ideas organized. The party should not be a tool of indoctrination to get those carbon copies. (Not a big fan of political parties anyway.)

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

Still in denial, seek help, keep me in the loop on your progress,:thumbsup:

Da Nile is the river water that Tea Partiers brew their tea in.

You're loopy enough.

[Libertarian94]

Then weigh in.

As a libertarian I would expect you to be pro-choice and anti-death penalty.

As an individual it is a bit more complicated...

At what point does the fetus become a baby? (So leave that for the states to define)

Death penalty Id personally say by the case it certainly isnt something to throw around willy nilly. But I think some people crimes are simply unforgivable and they as people can not be rehabilitated. So why bother with them?

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

1&2)And neither of those will change the idea of Libertarianism they will just change the party of Libertarianism.

3) I have to disagree with you there a political party is a general grouping trying to get similar ideas organized. The party should not be a tool of indoctrination to get those carbon copies. (Not a big fan of political parties anyway.)

Yes but that 1&2 is how the NeoCons hijacked the GOP. Any grouping can then be more easily taken over as a whole entity than they would've as individuals looking at individual candidates. It's more about the person than the platform, an evaluation of a person instead of blind party loyalty.

Of course, my member name and sig kinda give a heads-up as to my dislike of parties.

[Libertarian94]

Yes but that 1&2 is how the NeoCons hijacked the GOP. Any grouping can then be more easily taken over as a whole entity than they would've as individuals looking at individual candidates. It's more about the person than the platform, an evaluation of a person instead of blind party loyalty.

Of course, my member name and sig kinda give a heads-up as to my dislike of parties.


I agree with the bolded especially.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

As an individual it is a bit more complicated...

At what point does the fetus become a baby? (So leave that for the states to define)

Death penalty Id personally say by the case it certainly isnt something to throw around willy nilly. But I think some people crimes are simply unforgivable and they as people can not be rehabilitated. So why bother with them?

You trust state government more than I. We the People, not We the States.

I'd say that a fetus is the mothers decision and becomes a baby only when it can survive without the mother.

So until we can transplant them, deliver and care for them, then they are a medical problem for the mother who's body must provide sustenence and as such is her responsibility of decision.

I prefer the adoption route, excepting for medical emergency and rape scenarios, but at 1.5 million abortions a year that solution is inadequate. Prevention is key, but people are people and to ignore that is to be ignorant IMO.

[foxbaron]

I'm pro-death. Especially for child rapists where there is DNA evidence. and for treason and sedition. and I consider selling your Congresssional vote to the highest bidder treason.


Buckwheat:

I agree with ya.

[Kanadesaga]

Buckwheat:

I agree with ya.


ahhhhhh, that's not supposed to happen. :confused:

[Libertarian94]

"I'm pro-death. Especially for child rapists where there is DNA evidence. and for treason and sedition. and I consider selling your Congresssional vote to the highest bidder treason."

Id make it for rapists in general... Define treason and sedition?

[Kanadesaga]

"I'm pro-death. Especially for child rapists where there is DNA evidence. and for treason and sedition. and I consider selling your Congresssional vote to the highest bidder treason."
Id make it for rapists in general... Define treason and sedition?

With DNA evidence, indisputable, fry them in a month. If there is a doubt, life, no parole.

and selling your vote to a corporate entity is treason, and we have 535 of them selling their asses every day to the highest bidder.

it also violates the oath they rake, but I digress.

Taking up arms against a gov't entity. Invoking others to do the same. basic definitions.

[foxbaron]

ahhhhhh, that's not supposed to happen. :confused:


AMazing things sometimes happen.

AT least we agree on killing child molesters, rapists and other vermin.

[Libertarian94]

You trust state government more than I. We the People, not We the States.

I'd say that a fetus is the mothers decision and becomes a baby only when it can survive without the mother.

So until we can transplant them, deliver and care for them, then they are a medical problem for the mother who's body must provide sustenence and as such is her responsibility of decision.

I prefer the adoption route, excepting for medical emergency and rape scenarios, but at 1.5 million abortions a year that solution is inadequate. Prevention is key, but people are people and to ignore that is to be ignorant IMO.

Actually no I dont its just the its easier to change unpopular laws on the state and local levels then it is the Fed. I just like government to be as localized as possible.

I simply dont know where to draw the line Id say if you really want to make you decision as early as possible. I think a combination of adoption and birth control could help the situation greatly.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

With DNA evidence, indisputable, fry them in a month. If there is a doubt, life, no parole.

and selling your vote to a corporate entity is treason, and we have 535 of them selling their asses every day to the highest bidder.

it also violates the oath they rake, but I digress.

They should have to wear jackets like NASCAR with their sponsor patches.
Dollar amounts, too.

[Libertarian94]

With DNA evidence, indisputable, fry them in a month. If there is a doubt, life, no parole.

and selling your vote to a corporate entity is treason, and we have 535 of them selling their asses every day to the highest bidder.

it also violates the oath they rake, but I digress.

Taking up arms against a gov't entity. Invoking others to do the same. basic definitions.

Thats corruption not treason there is a difference... I think I have to disagree on sedition.

[Libertarian94]

They should have to wear jackets like NASCAR with their sponsor patches.
Dollar amounts, too.


It would be more honest.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

Actually no I dont its just the its easier to change unpopular laws on the state and local levels then it is the Fed. I just like government to be as localized as possible.

I don't agree, I did once for this very reason.

But I remember the civil rights movement and realize there would still be Jim Crow laws and segregation in many states without the Feds stepping in.

Instead of having to watch the State and the Fed, I'd rather watch one. I think that unless we want to be a hodge-podge of minor mini-nations with various motivations and resemble the EU we must maintain ourself as one Nation.

[Kanadesaga]

Actually no I dont its just the its easier to change unpopular laws on the state and local levels then it is the Fed. I just like government to be as localized as possible.

But where do you draw that line? What if the state next door wants to reinstate slavery? And decides it's Biblically justified in culling from your state. There needs to be federal standards. In fact, the fed doesn't go far enough in some areas. and too far in others.

I simply dont know where to draw the line Id say if you really want to make you decision as early as possible. I think a combination of adoption and birth control could help the situation greatly.


You're male, it's not your problem to draw a line.

[Libertarian94]

1)But where do you draw that line? What if the state next door wants to reinstate slavery? And decides it's Biblically justified in culling from your state. There needs to be federal standards. In fact, the fed doesn't go far enough in some areas. and too far in others.




2)You're male, it's not your problem to draw a line.


You are shamelessly using the slippery slope fallacy I see.

1)The state can not infringe upon the rights given in the constitution so they cant reinstate slavery even if they wanted to. ( And no one wants too.)

2) I refuse.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

One Penis, No Vote.

[Libertarian94]

I don't agree, I did once for this very reason.

But I remember the civil rights movement and realize there would still be Jim Crow laws and segregation in many states without the Feds stepping in.

Instead of having to watch the State and the Fed, I'd rather watch one. I think that unless we want to be a hodge-podge of minor mini-nations with various motivations and resemble the EU we must maintain ourself as one Nation.


The states had no right to segregate that is a case of the state overstepping there grounds. Actually originally the intent was us to me mini nations as you put it with a weak affiliation it wasnt til after the civil war that we thought of ourselves as a singular nation. Another positive of localized government is the idea if you do not like the laws in one jurisdiction you could move to another.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

The states had no right to segregate that is a case of the state overstepping there grounds. Actually originally the intent was us to me mini nations as you put it with a weak affiliation it wasnt til after the civil war that we thought of ourselves as a singular nation. Another positive of localized government is the idea if you do not like the laws in one jurisdiction you could move to another.

The original intent was itself a source of great contention at the time. There wasn't a consensus amongst the FFs. As the nation has progressed and modernized it has become increasingly federally controlled but its fairly clear this republic has been dominated from the Federal from the beginning.

A negative of localized governments is that only those with money can move from one jurisdiction to another thus giving the elite a false Eden as well as zero incentive to change. The poor suffer local discriminations and cannot afford to change their lot.

To mediate this, as well as items of States 'overstepping their bounds', is precisely why I prefer just the Fed so I can watch just the one entity as opposed to watching the fed and watching the state's observations of the fed's jurisdiction as well the precedence set to defy it.

[doctordog]

The original intent was itself a source of great contention at the time. There wasn't a consensus amongst the FFs. As the nation has progressed and modernized it has become increasingly federally controlled but its fairly clear this republic has been dominated from the Federal from the beginning.

A negative of localized governments is that only those with money can move from one jurisdiction to another thus giving the elite a false Eden as well as zero incentive to change. The poor suffer local discriminations and cannot afford to change their lot.

To mediate this, as well as items of States 'overstepping their bounds', is precisely why I prefer just the Fed so I can watch just the one entity as opposed to watching the fed and watching the state's observations of the fed's jurisdiction as well the precedence set to defy it.

So in your opinion, do the states of CA and NY need to be reigned in with their odd laws that are outside the norm?

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

So in your opinion, do the states of CA and NY need to be reigned in with their odd laws that are outside the norm?

In my opinion, or more pertaining - my ideal, would be that the states of CA and NY and all others would be local branches of the fed useful for local administrations.

[Hawkeye2j]

I don't agree, I did once for this very reason.

But I remember the civil rights movement and realize there would still be Jim Crow laws and segregation in many states without the Feds stepping in.

Instead of having to watch the State and the Fed, I'd rather watch one. I think that unless we want to be a hodge-podge of minor mini-nations with various motivations and resemble the EU we must maintain ourself as one Nation.
I'm with you on this one.

[Kanadesaga]

Or those weird states like Kentucky and Utah that promulgate pedophilia by allowing 14 year old girls to marry.

[doctordog]

Or those weird states like Kentucky and Utah that promulgate pedophilia by allowing 14 year old girls to marry.

Got a link to prove any of this?

[Kanadesaga]

Got a link to prove any of this?


Well I stand corrected, Kentucky must have joined the 20th century and changed the laws.

and still you can't quit me. :lmao2:

[doctordog]

Well I stand corrected, Kentucky must have joined the 20th century and changed the laws.

What about Utah, is that a law there too?

[Kanadesaga]

What about Utah, is that a law there too?


15 with parents consent

[doctordog]

15 with parents consent

WOW, did not know that.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

15 with parents consent

Got a link? :lmao2:
With names, numbers, photo?

:popcorn:

[Smurf-Herder]

Got a link? :lmao2:
With names, numbers, photo?

:popcorn:

Yeah.

If you're giving specifics, it's only your words unless you can back it up.

[Kanadesaga]

Yeah.

If you're giving specifics, it's only your words unless you can back it up.

why yes I can. The problem is, I am finding different ages for the same states at different websites.

http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm

http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/teen_marriage_laws/index.shtml

Then this site gives age of consent

http://www.ageofconsent.us/

and this one has different ages


http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm


But I can tell you why I said 14 was in Utah and Ky. If you remember the Elizabeth Smart case in Utah, at the time, news reports mentioned that the legal age of marriage was 14 in Utah and they mentioned Ky as having the same age. Since then, I suspect that statutes have been changed. the state of Washington recently changed theirs to 16, in 2001.

[Smurf-Herder]

why yes I can. The problem is, I am finding different ages for the same states at different websites.

http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm

http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/teen_marriage_laws/index.shtml

Then this site gives age of consent

http://www.ageofconsent.us/

and this one has different ages


http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm


But I can tell you why I said 14 was in Utah and Ky. If you remember the Elizabeth Smart case in Utah, at the time, news reports mentioned that the legal age of marriage was 14 in Utah and they mentioned Ky as having the same age. Since then, I suspect that statutes have been changed. the state of Washington recently changed theirs to 16, in 2001.

Cool. :cool:

All I ask of everybody is to have all pertinent material available for debate, so points and arguments can be made from some established foundation. :thumbsup:

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

Yeah.

If you're giving specifics, it's only your words unless you can back it up.

Actually, I was asking him for a link so I could score some jailbait.....:lmao2:

I thought it was clear I was kidding.

[Smurf-Herder]

Actually, I was asking him for a link so I could score some jailbait.....:lmao2:

I thought it was clear I was kidding.


Never let a good crisis go to waste? :lmao2:

[Libertarian94]

1)The original intent was itself a source of great contention at the time. There wasn't a consensus amongst the FFs. As the nation has progressed and modernized it has become increasingly federally controlled but its fairly clear this republic has been dominated from the Federal from the beginning.

A negative of localized governments is that only those with money can move from one jurisdiction to another thus giving the elite a false Eden as well as zero incentive to change. The poor suffer local discriminations and cannot afford to change their lot.

To mediate this, as well as items of States 'overstepping their bounds', is precisely why I prefer just the Fed so I can watch just the one entity as opposed to watching the fed and watching the state's observations of the fed's jurisdiction as well the precedence set to defy it.

The founding father were extremely clear that they did not want the fed to become a tyrannical force so much so under the Articles of Confederation they could not operate and under the constitution they added the bill of rights to protect the country's citizens.


Also I would like you to cite specific instances of local discrimination against the poor. Also this poverty thing you fall back on to me is way overblown any knucklehead with a job at McDonald's could move out of the jurisdiction. The average poor person in this country have 2 colored tv's and a car. They could afford to rent a house the next town over.;) Furthermore where would you vote count more in a town of 3000 people or a nation of 300,000,000 people?

Giving the fed all the power is the absolute worse thing you could do they already are quite the tyrannical force imagine when you remove all limitations to that power.

[Kanadesaga]

The founding father were extremely clear that they did not want the fed to become a tyrannical force so much so under the Articles of Confederation they could not operate and under the constitution they added the bill of rights to protect the country's citizens.


Also I would like you to cite specific instances of local discrimination against the poor. Also this poverty thing you fall back on to me is way overblown any knucklehead with a job at McDonald's could move out of the jurisdiction. The average poor person in this country have 2 colored tv's and a car. They could afford to rent a house the next town over.;) Furthermore where would you vote count more in a town of 3000 people or a nation of 300,000,000 people?

Giving the fed all the power is the absolute worse thing you could do they already are quite the tyrannical force imagine when you remove all limitations to that power.

Imagine when you are left to the designs of soulless corporations.

[Libertarian94]

Imagine when you are left to the designs of soulless corporations.


Corporations are founded because of not in spite of the government.

[Kanadesaga]

Corporations are founded because of not in spite of the government.

Corporations are outgrowth of the Royal Charter.

[Libertarian94]

Corporations are outgrowth of the Royal Charter.


Im sorry, could you be more specific?

[Kanadesaga]

Im sorry, could you be more specific?

You know what a royal charter is? It was an edict by a King, say of France to a company giving them exclusive rights to trade in a region of the world. East India company? When royalty went out of fashion, the corporation was born. accomplishing the same thing as a royal charter, usually some exclusivity on a particular product.

You seem to be a corporatist. Let me ask you. If TR didn't trust bust in the last century were do you think we'd be right now?

[Libertarian94]

You know what a royal charter is? It was an edict by a King, say of France to a company giving them exclusive rights to trade in a region of the world. East India company? When royalty went out of fashion, the corporation was born. accomplishing the same thing as a royal charter, usually some exclusivity on a particular product.

You seem to be a corporatist. Let me ask you. If TR didn't trust bust in the last century were do you think we'd be right now?
Yes I know what the charter is...

Really why do seem like a corporatist? Forgive me I think we need to take a couple steps back in this conversation.

[Kanadesaga]

Yes I know what the charter is...

Really why do seem like a corporatist? Forgive me I think we need to take a couple steps back in this conversation.


I'm sorry, perhaps I have you confused with CommonCents.

[Libertarian94]

I'm sorry, perhaps I have you confused with CommonCents.


I disagree that they are an out growth they are an inevitability of a large government.

[Kanadesaga]

I disagree that they are an out growth they are an inevitability of a large government.



Corporations are an outgrowth of large Government? So, tell me when did we hit "big government"? What year was that?

[Libertarian94]

Corporations are an outgrowth of large Government? So, tell me when did we hit "big government"? What year was that?


It is hard to determine an exact year as these thing do not happen over night... I would say in America about post civil war era.

[Kanadesaga]

It is hard to determine an exact year as these thing do not happen over night... I would say in America about post civil war era.


Corporations existed long before that. But the exact ruling, which wasn't a ruling at all was the 1886 case of Santa clara county v Southern pacific railroad. A clerk's note has given corps the rights of personhood ever since.

[Libertarian94]

Corporations existed long before that. But the exact ruling, which wasn't a ruling at all was the 1886 case of Santa clara county v Southern pacific railroad. A clerk's note has given corps the rights of personhood ever since.

That depends on what you consider a corporation... "corporations" back then were much smaller and really had little influence over the market unlike today,

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

The founding father were extremely clear that they did not want the fed to become a tyrannical force so much so under the Articles of Confederation they could not operate and under the constitution they added the bill of rights to protect the country's citizens.


Also I would like you to cite specific instances of local discrimination against the poor. Also this poverty thing you fall back on to me is way overblown any knucklehead with a job at McDonald's could move out of the jurisdiction. The average poor person in this country have 2 colored tv's and a car. They could afford to rent a house the next town over.;) Furthermore where would you vote count more in a town of 3000 people or a nation of 300,000,000 people?

Giving the fed all the power is the absolute worse thing you could do they already are quite the tyrannical force imagine when you remove all limitations to that power.

You do know that the GOP's father, Jefferson, created the GOP over the FFs arguements over this very thing and is the reason the long-stated platform of the GOP is small federal government? There was GREAT contention amongst the FFs over Fed vs State powers as well as contention over where fed power would lay - Congress or the Executive.

As this is the first I've broached this subject, I've never 'fall back on' any poverty 'thing' but I mention it in the context because its true. Go to the projects in any major city and tell me again how these people can move to another state if they don't or can't like what the state they're in is doing.

As to examples of local discriminations against the poor, to me its a no-brainer if that system you propose we switch to happens. There are no examples of same now because we don't operate in such a system.

The Bill Of Rights is protection for citizens, not states.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

Corporations in and of themselves are great.
The American model grew from the fact that it takes big companies to do big projects.

The problem is the construction of their charter and the handling of their affairs.
Corporations up until WWII were useful. They created large projects and profits and stock solidarity. Tho public stock owned, the true ownership was still the original individual such as Ford.

Then the profit charter became abused and the healthy big-project corporation mutated into something wrong. Today's corporations, drafting off the artifically created boon of post WWII, morphed under Reagan into mega corporations that no longer produced product but instead 'creates' its wealth thru consolidation of other producing corporations and companies.

These mega corporations no longer had accountability for anything else but profit. No pride of ownership, no Ford running the show. No patriotism.
And these mega corporations, having used the emancipation, now buy and sell stocks like a real live citizen - tho a citizen that you can't arrest and can't be poisoned by its own products.

Hence, too big to fail.

[Libertarian94]

You do know that the GOP's father, 1)Jefferson, created the GOP over the FFs arguements over this very thing and is the reason the long-stated platform of the GOP is small federal government? There was GREAT contention amongst the FFs over Fed vs State powers as well as contention over where fed power would lay - Congress or the Executive.

2)As this is the first I've broached this subject, I've never 'fall back on' any poverty 'thing' but I mention it in the context because its true. Go to the projects in any major city and tell me again how these people can move to another state if they don't or can't like what the state they're in is doing.

3)As to examples of local discriminations against the poor, to me its a no-brainer if that system you propose we switch to happens. There are no examples of same now because we don't operate in such a system.

4)The Bill Of Rights is protection for citizens, not states.

1) I dont know if that is sarcasm but its factually incorrect.

2) Again the impoverished people in this country are still wealthy by the rest of the worlds standards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold

http://www.soundvision.com/Info/poor/statistics.asp
# The average poverty threshold for a family of four: $16,660 in annual income
# The average poverty threshold for a family of three: $13,003 in annual income

If you cant move to the next town over (doesnt have to be another state we are speaking of city government) something is wrong... May I remind you this is only about 12% of the population.

3) :lmao2: You cant be serious... Why would there be more discrimination on the local level? Do they suddenly say fuck the poor just because their township has more governing power?

4) See the 9th and 10th amendments.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

1) I dont know if that is sarcasm but its factually incorrect.

2) Again the impoverished people in this country are still wealthy by the rest of the worlds standards.

World standards? By World Standards our poor are great. That's because a great big portion of the world sucks. Comparing our poor and saying they're lot isn't so bad when compared to living in giant garbage dumps in slums worldwide would tend to make me think my minimum standards America should allow for its poor are slightly higher than yours are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold

http://www.soundvision.com/Info/poor/statistics.asp
# The average poverty threshold for a family of four: $16,660 in annual income
# The average poverty threshold for a family of three: $13,003 in annual income

Which makes my point for me.....

If you cant move to the next town over (doesnt have to be another state we are speaking of city government) something is wrong... May I remind you this is only about 12% of the population.

Using your charts, yes. Also I might again point big city projects and again ask you where that moving income is to come from again? And it is States and not city goverment we're discussing, but lets allow the shift and make that move 'easier' by making it another city move. A family of four that earns (YOUR numbers) 17,000 is going to move how again? Across the street is going to cost a grand so tell me again where that money comes from? And if you figure the costs are out of site for a family of four for an out of state move is going to be impossible for an income much higher than 17,000 then you're talking about an incredibly larger number than 12% which is already over 1 in 10 citizens.

3) :lmao2: You cant be serious... Why would there be more discrimination on the local level? Do they suddenly say fuck the poor just because their township has more governing power?

So the civil rights problems didn't happen? Not only are poor vulnerable without federal protection but so are various miniorities. History shows it, hell even the tea parties coverage is giving you a taste of it. You really can't be serious if you maintain that you can't see this?

4) See the 9th and 10th amendments.

I have. I suggest you do the same instead of reading somebody else's interpretation. Also, I suggest reading the rest of the Bill of Rights, the preceding Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and some aside study of the writings of and about the founding fathers.
I have and continue to do so.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

1) I dont know if that is sarcasm but its factually incorrect.

Regale me.

[Kanadesaga]

That depends on what you consider a corporation... "corporations" back then were much smaller and really had little influence over the market unlike today,


go read, then get back to me.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

Hell, while I'm waiting how about I provide said information' (note in particular the wording of Amend. 10 which is an admonishment of states and a reaffirmation of the order or power (repectively) and a reminder of the power residing in the citizens 'or to the people' :

Bill of Rights

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.