Drunkard's Walk Forums

Outside of a literal courtroom or an academic environment where the defense of a thesis is the entire point I view people saying they were being the devil's advocate the same way i view people who claim they were being racist ironically.

In other words, @Rajvik, I don't care about your self justifications. You're just being an asshole. And there is no excuse for that.

I suggest you take a long look in the mirror before someone on here starts a thread about how Hitler was a bad guy or the holocaust actually happened and you accidentally on purpose your way into being the worst human being.

(07-01-2019, 08:13 AM)Epsilon Wrote: [ -> ]Outside of a literal courtroom or an academic environment where the defense of a thesis is the entire point I view people saying they were being the devil's advocate the same way i view people who claim they were being racist ironically.

In other words, @Rajvik, I don't care about your self justifications. You're just being an asshole. And there is no excuse for that.

I suggest you take a long look in the mirror before someone on here starts a thread about how Hitler was a bad guy or the holocaust actually happened and you accidentally on purpose your way into being the worst human being.

You're being specious and unfair. To the best of my recollection, Rajvik has never argued against either of those propositions.

Though, to be specious and unfair myself, I wouldn't put it past him to argue that Hitler was actually a socialist, or was better than Stalin. I don't, however, think even he could argue both of those propositions without cognitive dissonance setting in.

Can we not dogpile Raj? You don't have to like him or his opinions, but he's got as much right to hold and argue for them as everyone else.

I'm laughing at the "stable genius" who thinks Sherman tanks that haven't been produced since the year before I was born are "brand new."

Even The National Interest, well known for its tree-hugging liberalism (sarcasm alert), has come out of the closet to point out that what this POTUS, or rather, DOTUS, is saying makes no sense.

-----
God made me an agnostic — who are you to question His wisdom?

Well, like I said a year or so ago...

Gawrsh, ah hope ah don' git fired!

(06-27-2019, 10:58 PM)Matrix Dragon Wrote: [ -> ]What did I tell you? WHAT DID I FUCKING TELL YOU?!

https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2019/...issed.html

Charges dropped

(07-01-2019, 04:19 PM)Mamorien Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-01-2019, 08:13 AM)Epsilon Wrote: [ -> ]Outside of a literal courtroom or an academic environment where the defense of a thesis is the entire point I view people saying they were being the devil's advocate the same way i view people who claim they were being racist ironically.

In other words, @Rajvik, I don't care about your self justifications. You're just being an asshole. And there is no excuse for that.

I suggest you take a long look in the mirror before someone on here starts a thread about how Hitler was a bad guy or the holocaust actually happened and you accidentally on purpose your way into being the worst human being.

You're being specious and unfair. To the best of my recollection, Rajvik has never argued against either of those propositions.

Though, to be specious and unfair myself, I wouldn't put it past him to argue that Hitler was actually a socialist, or was better than Stalin. I don't, however, think even he could argue both of those propositions without cognitive dissonance setting in.

Epsilon, you already think am the worst human being short of Donald Trump, so what would I have to lose if I did do such a thing?

Mamorien, I suggest you go here (it is Wikipedia) and reread what Nazism was. Hitler WAS a socialist, and as i have posted before, there is a difference between Socialism, which is an economic model, and communism, which is a political model.

As for who was the bigger murderous asshole, personally I feel its a toss up between Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot (Cambodia), and Woodrow Wilson.

I have said it before, and I will say it again, I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS LAW.
However, the representatives of the population of Alabama passed it, it having been introduced by a woman to the statehouse floor and signed by a woman governor. It is their state, and if the population doesn't agree, they will vote most of them out next year.

Now, that said, if you will give me until after the 4th to do a little legal research, I might have figured out how they figure they can charge the woman with the death of her child.

And Rob updated on the case while I was typing up my message. Quite frankly, it looks like they were going exactly the route I was imagining, not using the new law, but filing it as manslaughter due to reckless disregard of a life/minor.

Meanwhile in Florida:
Last election an amendment to the state constitution was passed that restored voting rights to people who completed their prison sentences. Well, the governor and the GOP legislature took a page of their favorite period of history (segregation) and subverted the electorate by imposing a poll tax:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/28/us/fl...ights.html

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/...fines-fees

And here is Legal Eagle on the constitutionality, or lack thereof, of the forced pregnancy laws AKA heartbeat laws:

So... how legal are poll taxes again?

That is not a poll tax, a poll tax is a requirement for you to pay a fee just to be able to vote. Here what you have is someone having to finish the monetary part of their sentence. You see, when you are convicted of a crime there are court costs and restitution that are part of the sentence that you are required to pay. All this law does is make it clear where it wasn't before, that you are also required to pay these fines as well as having served your time.
From the first article

Quote:The new law requires people with serious criminal histories to fully pay back fines and fees to the courts before they become eligible to vote.

(07-04-2019, 10:33 AM)Rajvik Wrote: [ -> ]That is not a poll tax, a poll tax is a requirement for you to pay a fee just to be able to vote. Here what you have is someone having to finish the monetary part of their sentence. You see, when you are convicted of a crime there are court costs and restitution that are part of the sentence that you are required to pay. All this law does is make it clear where it wasn't before, that you are also required to pay these fines as well as having served your time.
From the first article

Quote:The new law requires people with serious criminal histories to fully pay back fines and fees to the courts before they become eligible to vote.

‘Vox article’ Wrote:Voting rights advocates say that requiring a person to pay all of their fines and fees before registering will deny voting rights to hundreds of thousands of Floridians with felony convictions — a group civil rights organizations are calling “returning citizens.” Estimates have suggested that more than half a million people will be affected by the new financial obligation-paying requirement, and many will need to wait years to finish payments before they can vote. Others may never be able to clear their debts, meaning that they will be permanently disenfranchised.

Bolding mine. It quacks like a duck, etc.

The United States penal system already imposes penalties way beyond what could be claimed as justified, no matter the crime. The GOP is just using that feature to continue denying the right to vote once they lost the referendum. This in the end is no different from their shenanigans in Ohio Oregon because the end result is the same: denying a voice to the people they believe should not have a voice.

The GOP is making use of the Vetinary Principle: One man. One vote. The GOP is the only man. They have the only vote.

(07-04-2019, 08:13 AM)hazard Wrote: [ -> ]So... how legal are poll taxes again?

As legal as the Robert’s Court can make them. Remember, they declared that the 1967 voting rights act was no longer needed. This is part of that.

(07-04-2019, 10:33 AM)Rajvik Wrote: [ -> ]That is not a poll tax, a poll tax is a requirement for you to pay a fee just to be able to vote. Here what you have is someone having to finish the monetary part of their sentence. You see, when you are convicted of a crime there are court costs and restitution that are part of the sentence that you are required to pay. All this law does is make it clear where it wasn't before, that you are also required to pay these fines as well as having served your time.
From the first article

Quote:The new law requires people with serious criminal histories to fully pay back fines and fees to the courts before they become eligible to vote.

So, you mean to tell me that it's legal for the Florida government to accuse me of any number of crimes, run up the government's legal bills to an arbitrarily impossible to pay level and only see me convicted of a single felony to deny me the right to vote forever?

I mean, seriously. Before the referendum it was not required of any convicted felon to pay the court fees and fines to be allowed to reclaim their right to vote, all they needed to do was convince the governor to write an order to the appropriate officials to do so, and argue their case in person, or the commission he appointed to handle this duty, also in person. If the law had existed before the matter was brought to a referendum and the referendum declared that all convicted felons should be allowed to vote upon conclusion of their sentence, with it being understood that having served one's time in jail and being released is the completion of that sentence.

This is a poll tax, it just uses an excuse to make it seem more palatable. It's a poll tax because it forbids sections of the population to vote on the basis of their financial situation. Effectively, you are not allowed to vote if you can't pay a sum of money.

(07-04-2019, 10:33 AM)Rajvik Wrote: [ -> ]That is not a poll tax, a poll tax is a requirement for you to pay a fee just to be able to vote. Here what you have is someone having to finish the monetary part of their sentence. You see, when you are convicted of a crime there are court costs and restitution that are part of the sentence that you are required to pay. All this law does is make it clear where it wasn't before, that you are also required to pay these fines as well as having served your time.
From the first article

Quote:The new law requires people with serious criminal histories to fully pay back fines and fees to the courts before they become eligible to vote.

Not having access to the Florida State criminal code (assuming Florida actually has criminal law codified), I have to ask: Is this requirement to serve time and pay a fine instead of serve time or pay a fine something new?

To all of you questioning the "legal fees" as Hazard put it YES you were always required to pay the legal fees, the thing was there was no time limit (and arguably still isn't) on how long you took to pay them. Now all they are saying is that paying these fees are required prior to you getting those voting rights back. For your reference, I am a convicted felon, MY FEES ARE ALREADY PAID OFF all I have to do is finish my damn probation and I am good.

(07-04-2019, 03:07 PM)Rajvik Wrote: [ -> ]To all of you questioning the "legal fees" as Hazard put it YES you were always required to pay the legal fees, the thing was there was no time limit (and arguably still isn't) on how long you took to pay them. Now all they are saying is that paying these fees are required prior to you getting those voting rights back. For your reference, I am a convicted felon, MY FEES ARE ALREADY PAID OFF all I have to do is finish my damn probation and I am good.

Truly?

Do these debts get passed on in the inheritance?

No, because they are considered unsecured debt, like a store credit card, once you die, they wash.

The UK ambassador's assessment of the "uniquely dysfunctional" Trump maladministration, intended only for the eyes of Whitehall, has received a more general release. 

Quote:“We don’t really believe this administration is going to become substantially more normal; less dysfunctional; less unpredictable; less faction riven; less diplomatically clumsy and inept.”

Keep in mind this is the UK making this assessment. Since the Brexit vote Britain itself has found itself in similar, if less dire, straits.

I found an interesting article pulling the curtain a bit to peek behind the intelectual underpinnings of today’s GOP strategies.

https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectiv...PVz8eCTL1Y

Got to say that if there is a hell, Buchanan certainly deserves to be there.

(07-12-2019, 04:58 PM)SilverFang01 Wrote: [ -> ]I found an interesting article pulling the curtain a bit to peek behind the intelectual underpinnings of today’s GOP strategies.

https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectiv...PVz8eCTL1Y

Got to say that if there is a hell, Buchanan certainly deserves to be there.

I haven't read the article yet. I'm just pointing out that that particular group was initially funded by George Soros, and according to the Wikipedia article about the group gets or got a lot of its funding from left-leaning millionaires. I'm not expecting an unbiased article there.

(07-12-2019, 07:01 PM)robkelk Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-12-2019, 04:58 PM)SilverFang01 Wrote: [ -> ]I found an interesting article pulling the curtain a bit to peek behind the intelectual underpinnings of today’s GOP strategies.

https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectiv...PVz8eCTL1Y

Got to say that if there is a hell, Buchanan certainly deserves to be there.

I haven't read the article yet. I'm just pointing out that that particular group was initially funded by George Soros, and according to the Wikipedia article about the group gets or got a lot of its funding from left-leaning millionaires. I'm not expecting an unbiased article there.

Guess I’ll head to the library and see if I can read a couple of his books. That way I’ll be judging him by his own words.

Good idea.