|
Jail 'em all
London Telegraph | Submitted by: DS
"Drivers who adjust sat-navs, tinker with MP3 music players such as iPods or send text messages at the wheel could also face prison sentences."
|
From: sp00k
Date: 20-Dec-2007 15:50
How about putting on makeup in the rear view mirror while driving, like the dumb bitch that almost killed me was doing.
From: gargoyle1
Date: 20-Dec-2007 15:54
How about reading the paper, a book or magazine? Eating? Using a blow dryer or curling iron? Watching a DVD? How about we just execute the fuckers on the spot? That'd make me happy. Then make their auto insurance higher than someone with a DUI.
From: sp00k
Date: 20-Dec-2007 16:05
From: pontiuspilatus [Pontius Phallus Pilatius] Date: 20-Dec-2007 15:56 What about getting a blowjob while driving? ============= Getting one's fine, giving one is another story
From: gargoyle1
Date: 20-Dec-2007 16:05
As long as the driver is the one getting blown, fine, if the drivers doing the blowing, that's bad.
From: brainspore [Brainspore]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 16:08
Much as I'd like to jail some of the people I've encountered on the road, It's generally a bad idea to pass strict laws against things that most people do. Almost everyone with a cell phone has used it while driving on at least one occasion. You can't realistically imprison the majority of the populace. (I myself am happy to be cell-phone free.)
From: thesickthsense
[iseewhitepeople!]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 16:12
They can't even enforce the pissant laws that already exist. For instance, rap? How many of you have been woken up by that junk at 3 in the fucking morning? I would mention rock, country, classical, whatever... but I've never heard that shit that loud, that late. Are they (yes, wiggers too) ever pulled over? What is the use?
From: doczzz
[dwarf fusion]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 16:30
I very desperately want to be a good libertarian, but then I read stupid articles like this. The problem I have is the type of punishment they are proposing...jail terms. I want to say that the government shouldn't tell people to wear helmets, talk on cell phones, put on makeup, etc. while driving. John Q. Taxpayer doesn't need to finance the construction of more prisons. But these fuckwits cause fatal accidents, raise everyone's insurance rates, and increase the number of lawsuits, etc. Just like deregulation of the banking industry lead to rampant greed and fraud, and now we're looking at the biggest economic depression since the 1930's...I'm becoming more convinced that self-regulation doesn't work. So instead of throwing these guys into prison with hardened criminals, I propose that we give *$$ fines* to people who break these laws. Not jail terms (because they can't earn money in jail). FINES...fines where you lose your house, your car, or your property if you don't pay them within the deadline, beyotch... If they made it a $2000 fine for every incident, I guarantee these laws wouldn't get broken. And the perps would pay for the enforcement of the laws they break, not the rest of us. Jails wouldn't be so overcrowded... More jails don't help society...save them for pedos, rapists, and murderers. Dole out a punishment that really hurts. Money talks.
From: thesickthsense
[iseewhitepeople!]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 16:33
Doc: From the *article*: "Existing guidelines restricted prosecutors to pursuing only a charge of careless driving, for which the maximum fine is £5,000 along with up to nine points on a motorist's licence." £5,000 fine = $10,035.50 USD
From: beavis4000 [Who?]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 16:38
Howabout masturbating?  Can they still do that while driving? Maybe not, if they have a manual transmission.
From: mikeisgreen
[Mike]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 16:41
Doczzz, I agree that money talks, but what to you do about broke drivers who don't care about fines because they can never pay them? Money can't talk to everyone, as there are people in this world who couldn't give a rat's ass about money. Also, I think if someone causes a fatal or injurious crash while on the phone he should see jailtime. Fucking around too much with driving seems to me to be like shooting a gun into the air in a crowded city. Hell, Quebec is about to make winter tires mandatory. Even in this snow (over 3 feet in December alone) some fucktards are still using summer tires. What about fines ($2000 and up) as a deterrent, and jailtime for the fucktards who ignore it and hurt people?
From: sp00k
Date: 20-Dec-2007 16:41
There shouldn't be any fine, but if you get into an accident and there's proof you were screwing around, then they should nail em to the wall.
From: pontiuspilatus
[Pontius Phallus Pilatius]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 16:42
I've been using my cell phone for 18 years now while driving and never made anyone swerve or whatever. (It's just shitty on the motorbike, because of the noise created by the wind.) Why can't this law be applied to those who are not multi-tasking enabled only ?
From: sp00k
Date: 20-Dec-2007 16:46
Everyone has to pay because of a few retards. I can talk on the phone, adjust my mp3, drink a beer and roll a joint all at the same time while driving.
From: pontiuspilatus
[Pontius Phallus Pilatius]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 16:59
From: sp00k Date: 20-Dec-2007 16:46 Everyone has to pay because of a few retards. I can talk on the phone, adjust my mp3, drink a beer and roll a joint all at the same time while driving. ---------------------- While getting a BJ? Nah, you'd spill the beer.
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 17:00
Not everybody can pay fines. That means that poor people go to jail, while the rich don't. That's not a fair system. The put people in jail for driving drunk, and talking on the phone while diving is at least as dangerous as driving drunk.
From: elfboy
[blinky7]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 17:02
Hands-free phones are ok, I think, but texting & driving is sheer idiocy. Also, while blowjobs are very fine, they too, are a no-no while driving. After all, coming & going don't mix.
From: doczzz
[dwarf fusion]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 17:04
<<the maximum fine is £5,000>> What good is a fine without teeth? Seriously, garnish their home or their car, don't just send them to a fucking collection agency. People are used to ignoring their bills. I am just passionate about jailing scofflaws with murderers and rapists when we're running out of room.
From: doczzz
[dwarf fusion]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 17:07
<<Money can't talk to everyone, as there are people in this world who couldn't give a rat's ass about money. >> If they own any property (car, bike, computer, TV) at all, the government can *make* them care. I'd rather see more repo men after these kind of people, and let the police solve real crimes.
From: doczzz
[dwarf fusion]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 17:12
<<Not everybody can pay fines. That means that poor people go to jail, while the rich don't. That's not a fair system. >> Well, you have a good point there. Jail is more democratic, although rich people still don't need to worry about it (I think Paris Hilton only spent a week or two in jail for TWO drunk driving convictions). Maybe make the fines proportionate to your yearly income? Like 5% for each offense? All I know is, Money Talks. The issue is that we don't need to stuff people like these in jail. Jail is paid for by taxpayers (i.e. you and me), and they all are running out of room to even lock up the serious criminals.
From: thesickthsense
[iseewhitepeople!]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 17:16
** I'd rather see more repo men after these kind of ** people, and let the police solve real crimes. Anybody but an idiot feels the same way. The problem is, people who don't follow laws tend to not follow laws. Take away their license, they'll still drive. Take away their car, they'll drive their moms, or friends, or steal one. Take away... ?? Eventually, they're going to prison anyways. Making them poorer will just make them break more laws. There has to be a better way than breaking their finances (or imprisoning them.) The only thing that would seem to work, would be for the person to pay the fine with labor. But we can't. We can't even do chain gangs anymore.
From: andrewthegreat
[Cymru am byth]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 17:21
"There has to be a better way than breaking their finances (or imprisoning them.) The only thing that would seem to work, would be for the person to pay the fine with labor." Break their phones, now there's the answer. Confiscate and destroy them (I mean the phones not the drivers). Then they'll think twice about doing it again.
From: snatchvondrippy [snatch]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 17:28
confiscate the offending article; cellphone, palm unit, pocket pussy. substantial fine with possession(s) returned when fine is satisfied. 2nd offense; same, higher fine, vehicle impounded immediately. 3rd-same, max. fine, impound vehicle, booked on vehicular negligence or fut ha ye and so on and so on and so on-being made instantly "inconvenienced" has a bigger impact-imo.
From: andrewthegreat
[Cymru am byth]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 17:40
From: thesickthsense [iseewhitepeople!] Date: 20-Dec-2007 17:27 They'll just steal another phone. ------------------- Borrow their friend's phone, or just buy another. Talking of confiscating and destroying, DVLA regularly runs a 'blitz' on uninsured and untaxed cars all over Britain, offending cars are towed away and then crushed. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article356582.ece "GMTV presenter Kate Garraway’s smart VW car has been crushed after she failed to pay road tax, The Sun can reveal. The 39-year-old Strictly Come Dancing star had been unable to drive the Beetle after getting tendonitis during her rehearsals. So Kate had left it round the corner from her North London home while she got lifts from pals. What she did not realise was the tax was overdue. And in accordance with DVLA procedure it was spotted by a warden who had it clamped. Because it was not taxed 24 hours after that, it was taken to a car pound. And a week later it was crushed." The car was worth £10,000 ($20,000).
From: andrewthegreat
[Cymru am byth]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 18:11
"Andy Why didn't they just sell the damn thing, take their tax, and hand her the remaining? That makes no sense." It's because we have a 'fucked up' government.  Read this. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3874785.stm There are people who have had their work vehicles seized and crushed, and lost their jobs just for bringing slightly too much 'duty free' alcohol and tobacco from Europe.
From: doczzz
[dwarf fusion]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 18:19
<<Making them poorer will just make them break more laws. >> I don't know if talking on your cell phone while driving means you will eventually wind up in prison. The slope ain't that slippery... Well at least Duder agrees with me that throwing them in jail is crazy talk...why did he bold "prison sentences"? On this forum, Duder is always right...
From: thesickthsense
[iseewhitepeople!]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 18:30
Who doesn't agree, doc? 'Fining' people doesn't work. Even if it did, how do you fine someone who's only income is welfare, or none at all? Knock knock? Somehow, people with very little money have cell phones, and drive cars. I see it all the time. Their houses are shitholes that dogs wouldn't live in, yet they drive Lincoln's, wear $100 shoes, do their nails, and chat their asses off. The only thing that would work is forced labor, and it can't be done. This is America, and that is Britain. We're both bound by the same idiocy.
From: mikeisgreen
[Mike]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 18:31
I'd still like to see a prison sentence for the asshole who ran a red light and put me in the hospital for a week, and necessitated months of physiotherapy.
From: doczzz
[dwarf fusion]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 18:35
I have no problem with forced labor. If you aren't willing to pay the fine with your own job, then we'll send your ass to "Worker's Paradise", in Rat Island Alaska...where you either make license plates, or you eat what you can catch.
From: beavis4000 [Who?]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 18:49
Wouldn't it suck if they began confiscating MP3 players and charging people with possessing pirated tunes? How much is the fine now? $350k/tune? They might as well just tack on the death penalty and be over with it.
From: doesshe
[ever shut up, that DS?]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 19:07
From: andrewthegreat [Cymru am byth] Date: 20-Dec-2007 18:46 On the subject of driving offences, where is the submitter of this article? -------------------- Hardee har har, sandy. Despite my recent legal debacle, my driver's license has zero points on it. I take great pains to apply make-up and talk on my cell phone only when I am stopped at a red light. I am conscientious that way.
From: noracejusthuman
[Alien From Earth]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 19:13
After reading everyone prior on the thread..and since I will only give a shit about this really huge "problem" in the middle of my holiday season for only say..another few more minutes.. ;) I say.. I like Spook's and aulderon's and doc's points..I don't like "jail terms" UNLESS they are a cause of a death or serious injury. I agree that Only the rich will pay, the poor go to jail. I believe we will never make it perfect either, To be the Fairest.. I think taking the CAR away period might work. For each offense, whatever,the car you were in would be impounded. Oh ..and you walk home, after being cuffed and brought to the police station, while your EX car is towed away forever..Also ENforcing the law in the first place would be worth more an effort. (why do people blow this off?) A more visible police presence? Increasing penalities before really enforcing the EXISTing LAw would bE A FIRST , not a last step IMO...Now ....what's for supper tonight! 
From: gobsmacked
[Real Wild Church!]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 19:34
Prison is a stupid idea, fines only hurt the poor while the rich don't give a fuck. The answer is to hit them in the driving license. No one, rich or poor, likes to be deprived of their driving license. Prison should be reserved for the ones who get caught, lose their license, and continue to drive. And yes, we've all done it, but by now we should have engaged our brains and woken up to the danger that we're causing to ourselves and to others.
From: doesshe
[ever shut up, that DS?]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 19:41
From: noracejusthuman [Alien From Earth] Date: 20-Dec-2007 19:13 After reading everyone prior on the thread..and since ------------ I quit reading your post after here, just so you know.
From: mikeisgreen
[Mike]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 19:47
Doczzz, the concept of forced labour as a criminal sentence has sadly fallen out of favour. Now it's called "community service," and it's a joke. I would love to see all violent criminals (and those "non-violent" ones who cause death or injury) to be forced work it off. Modern courts would be far too soft to do it, though.
From: kingturd [King turd on a pile of shit]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 19:47
Wait Police talk on their radios while driving... of the pigs can do whatever they want, I forgot.
From: assholius
[ikthool]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 19:47
So you guys have that much trouble controling a vehicle with one hand? Should stick shift be outlawed? Or is it the distraction ? Should talking while driving be outlawed?
From: armchairdeviant [Benny Benobers]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 19:51
One of the only places in the world where I've never seen a fuck tard doing something stupid behind the wheel is on the autobahns in Germany. Fuck up there and you're dead. Drivers do everything by the book and that's the only way it can work. Sure the German police come down hard on any infraction. We should be driving at 80 mph + but because numbnutted dickwads fail to pay attention we all have to do the crawl and still wait to see if someone reading the paper, drinking coffee, and talking on the phone will take us out. A two ton automobile is a weapon and should be handled with nothing but care and attention. If you can't do that lifetime license suspensions will keep the shitheads on the bus where they can do what they seem to think needs doing.
From: gargoyle1
Date: 20-Dec-2007 20:16
If you absolutely have to use your phone to discuss what you had for dinner last night with your girl friend, use a blue tooth headset. If your phone has voice recognition for dialing, you're all set. Or, get a life and turn off the freaking phone, it's not that hard. What the hell. People act like they'll just die if they aren't able to talk about the most stupid of shit while they're at the theater, driving, etc. I remember the days back before cell phones. It was a quieter, and even more polite society then. Now it's some loudmouthed twat talking about what to buy for dinner while wandering through the store. Some places need Faraday cages built in, like restaurants and theaters.
From: doesshe
[ever shut up, that DS?]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 20:18
ikthool, I learned to drive with a stick shift. It is different when all your efforts are focused on one task...i.e., coordinating one's driving efforts. On the other hand, I know for a fact that I cannot drive safely while conversing on a cell phone. I just can't. But, that is me; not all are the same. Nonetheless, you do have to admit that there HAS been a rise in car crashes due to people and their cell phones while driving.
From: wulfgarthewhite [Black to White]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 20:30
Yes, enforce existing laws or repeal them. Selective or random enforcement is injustice. Higher penalties for those who cause wrecks? How? The killers drive on yakking in ignorant bliss while the pile-ups they cause fade in the rear-view mirror. My personal wish? Destroy the phone? Way short. Destroy the car and every non-living thing in it - crush it on the spot. Have mobile traffic courts in vans with car-crushers in tow so sentence can be carried out in full view of the offender and encourage the innocent passing motorist. It's a rental? Too fucking bad. Company car? Too fucking bad. Borrowed from your Mommy? Too fucking bad. No valid license. Too fucking bad. No insurance? Same song, same chorus - pedestrian. Stolen? You get squashed in stead of the car. Remember that the roads are common property, they must be used in a spirit of cooperation or they don't work. Remember also that walking is good for us and doesn't cause pot-holes. We are the animal that walks a thousand miles - on purpose. Pay attention and drive happy.
From: noracejusthuman
[Alien From Earth]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 20:37
Hi ds baby..Did you see my REAL XMAS list! I just knew you were kidding up there a few posts back You couldn't stay away from Me, could you. I agree with you too here.. I can't safely drive my vehicle while talking on a cell phone, I believe that it ups the risk for an accident for EVERYONE that does it. As such, I don't. I don't feel I really have the right to put someone else (my passengers for one) life at a higher risk, just because I can't stop talking .. And I ESPECIALLY don't appreciate ASSHOLES who think nothing of INCREASING my chances of death or injury, just because THEY want the Luxury of cell phones in the car. I remember a time where EVERYone had no phones to talk on and STILL we had a lot of CAR accidents.. Luv ya ds XOXQT :0
From: doesshe
[ever shut up, that DS?]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 20:48
From: noracejusthuman [Alien From Earth] Date: 20-Dec-2007 20:37 Hi ds baby ------------ I quit reading your post after there. Something about a 60-year old male nurse saying that to me even furthered my resolve not to talk on the cell phone while driving. God forbid, should I get in a wreck, and wake up to see you looming over me.
From: elfboy
[blinky7]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 20:48
I you need to drive, then drive. Don't talk 'n drive, just fucking drive. Easy. Another problem solved by Elfboy. DoesShe - ever considered hormone replacement? It seems to me all you do is spew vile vitriol, & hatefull invective, without any cogent arguemnts to support your rhetoric. You are the female version of Killbill. I feel sorry for you, sort of. Happy Rama-Hannah-Kwaanz-Mas!
From: noracejusthuman
[Alien From Earth]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 20:59
By the way ds , you know I"M 50, poptart. You're the only one for me baby, you know that..Keep playing Hard to get baby..that's what I like.. Safety First I always say too. Kisses from your personal Santa Claus, Norace, the one and only, FIFTY year old male nurse. No clones, no tricks.. Just good OLD fashioned honesty and fun from one guy
From: zoift [David]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 21:12
"The latest figures show that in 2005 129,700 motorists still flouted the ban." "...after figures showed that mobile phones were linked to 13 fatal accidents in 2005 and 52 serious crashes." Whoopty-goddamned-doo, 65 out of 129,700. That's something like 5 hundredths of a percent. "It is believed that by increasing the penalties, drivers will start to take the law seriously." That's just fucking stupid. "They have crossed the threshold from careless to dangerous driving. These guidelines make that clear." The other 129,635, drivers seem to be doing just fine.
From: rotteneggs13
[a bakers dozen]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 21:14
What is it with people having to talk on their cell phones to discuss everyday minutia? Everytime I am at the grocery store there is some dumb bitch on a cell asking the person on the other end 'should I get the tuna-safe dolphin or the dolphin-safe tuna?' ----+----+----- From: pontiuspilatus [Pontius Phallus Pilatius] Date: 20-Dec-2007 15:56 What about getting a blowjob while driving? ================ I used to give my hubby blow-jobs while he was driving, but I had to stop because he was so distracted that he was afraid of causing an accident.
From: assholius
[ikthool]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 22:07
>>DoesShe - ever considered hormone replacement? It seems to me all you do is spew vile vitriol, & hatefull invective, without any cogent arguemnts to support your rhetoric. You are the female version of Killbill. I feel sorry for you, sort of.<< And I want to cover you in in angry fire ants and then lick them off. To each their own.
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 22:44
...I have no problem with forced labor... I do. Labor is something people get paid to perform. When convicts are forced to labor two things happen. 1) Paying jobs disappear. 2) It gives extra incentive to falsely convict people, in order to line someone else's pockets. Somebody is getting paid for that labor, but it's not the people doing the labor, nor is it the people who want to do that labor. Slavery is not acceptable, even when someone has "earned" it.
From: crnkybitch
[cranky bitch]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 23:04
The only thing that would work is forced labor, and it can't be done. +++ Forced labor is already done. Well maybe not in sense you mean, I'm not sure exactly how you mean it. But as far as convict labor, yes. Just google Unicor, or prison labor in general. It has long history, and it sucks for the very reasons Aulduron lists.
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 20-Dec-2007 23:42
I don't mind giving inmates the choice to earn commissary money, while giving them experience they can use to earn a living once they get out. I'm against prisons competing with legitimate businesses, though. I'm against any proceeds going into anyones pockets. I'm against compulsory participation.
From: thesickthsense
[iseewhitepeople!]
Date: 21-Dec-2007 00:01
Unicor is not forced labor, crnky. Not only is it the choice of the inmate to participate, but the inmate receives wages, is trained in vocation\occupation programs, granted job credits, assisted with job placement, their employers receive tax credits, etc. Forced labor? My ass. And aulduron, the forced labor approach is only meant when someone has a monetary debt to society and can't pay that debt. " Slavery is not acceptable, even when someone has "earned" it. " Slavery: The state of being under the control of another person. So prison isn't acceptable? Furthermore, you logic is in itself slavery. It means they are forced to NOT work. What if they would rather work, than rot in prison?
From: crnkybitch
[cranky bitch]
Date: 21-Dec-2007 00:07
I'm against prisons competing with legitimate businesses, though. +++ Which is what Unicor does. http://www.unicor.gov/ They sell only to the federal government. Of course other private companies that employed non-prisoners used to fill those contracts, but not now. They can't compete. http://www.wiretapmag.org/stories/41481 In most states prisoners receive little of the money they earn working either for state-run or private sector corrections firms such as the Corrections Corporations of America (CCA) and Wackenhut. The labor prisoners perform is often considerably cheaper than in the outside world. Case in point, Texas-based Lockhart Technologies closed its Austin plant and fired some 150 workers who constructed circuit boards because it could relocate those jobs to a Wackenhut-run prison where detainees did the work for minimum wage. http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0404/041204nj1.htm Textile and office-furniture manufacturers have been hit the hardest, and they have been frustrated in their attempts to secure or keep government contracts that would help protect them from the broader economic downturn caused in part by the loss of jobs to overseas companies. FPI "decimated the textile business," Hoekstra said. He added that prison labor has also undercut companies that make signs for federal agencies.
From: crnkybitch
[cranky bitch]
Date: 21-Dec-2007 00:11
Not only is it the choice of the inmate to participate, but the inmate receives wages, is trained in vocation\occupation programs, granted job credits, assisted with job placement, their employers receive tax credits, etc. +++ I said it might not fit your definition of forced labor. I realize it is the prisoners choice. However prison labor takes jobs aways from people not in prison. People that would otherwise be doing that work, were it not being done by convicts.
From: crnkybitch
[cranky bitch]
Date: 21-Dec-2007 00:13
the forced labor approach is only meant when someone has a monetary debt to society and can't pay that debt. +++ You want trash picked up along the roadways, fine. But what these companies are doing, no.
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 21-Dec-2007 00:32
OK, I admit that I used the word slavery to get emotion from Doc. You caught me. However, I don't buy your definition, either. Slavery is defined as a person who is owned, as property. Still, forcing labor is open to more abuse than the death penalty.
From: thesickthsense
[iseewhitepeople!]
Date: 21-Dec-2007 00:44
crnky, a job is a job. Prisoners aren't illegal aliens. Even the ones that are, would be working in the US legally, paying taxes, spending their income in this economy and not sending it to Mexico. Whether on the inside, or the outside... the 'job slot' is theirs. They might as well be productive, and not a debt to society. Auldy, google "define:slavery". It will return every known definition from virtually all sources. The primary definition of slavery is control, labor is a secondary extension of control. The reason labor takes precedence is because this is 2007. All we hear about is poor black folk and forced labor. It's more than that. Slavery is ancient. Picking cotton ain't.
From: other [unclassified]
Date: 21-Dec-2007 05:42
why do you think the big drive create as many prisoers as possible? Cannot do that in Africa anymore after 1865. Chinese and Korea are good at that already to get free labor & cheap goods to the west. We just try to compete with that. Workers will produce for money, but getting to--keep your life--is a bigger reward and output will go up. Quality is always better when the boss has a machine gun over there.
From: bilywtchdrdotcom
[Andy]
Date: 21-Dec-2007 05:56
From: thesickthsense [iseewhitepeople!] Date: 21-Dec-2007 00:45 " Slavery is defined as a person who is owned, as property. " differs from my supplied definition " Slavery: The state of being under the control of another person " How? ------------------------------------ It just does
From: other [unclassified]
Date: 21-Dec-2007 06:34
My truck has a stickshift...I wonder if I'll get it for taking my hands off the wheel?---or do I have to just leave it in 2nd gear and lug up to 20 and scream at 40 on the interstate. FAA has it right. You're ok until you have a wreck. If you arent up to spec then, you're going down for good.
From: doczzz
[dwarf fusion]
Date: 21-Dec-2007 06:55
<<OK, I admit that I used the word slavery to get emotion from Doc.>> Haha, Rotten's favorite spectator sport. Unfortunately, you're not a lying cunt...hard to get a rise from me otherwise.
From: crnkybitch
[cranky bitch]
Date: 21-Dec-2007 07:09
Whether on the inside, or the outside... the 'job slot' is theirs. They might as well be productive, and not a debt to society. +++ Sounds all fine and good TSS, except their jobs once belonged to people who were productive members of society, supporting their families. And as far a job training, not going to do a lot of good if the job you have trained for in prison,is mostly done by prisoners, illegals, or is now done overseas.
From: okshunalljeanyes [Sometimes Not]
Date: 21-Dec-2007 08:04
"Police now check mobile phone records after accidents to see if the driver was making a call at the time." What if they're calling 999 to say..."Hey, I'm about to have an accident on the M3 ?"
From: sp00k
Date: 21-Dec-2007 08:15
<<Making them poorer will just make them break more laws. >> ============= The only fair way to do it is to base the fine it on how much they make. A speeding ticket should cost someone like Hilton $300,000.
From: okshunalljeanyes [Sometimes Not]
Date: 21-Dec-2007 08:48
"A speeding ticket should cost someone like Hilton $300,000." But what if it makes her, or Brittany cry ? We'd see another stupid video from the emo guy.
From: simonjester [Bill Vojtech]
Date: 21-Dec-2007 10:56
A friend's brother was getting blown while driving, lost control, crashed, got bit, and his gf needed stiches in her head from bonking it on the dash under the steering wheel. Ah the fun they had explaining that to the cops.
From: snatchvondrippy [snatch]
Date: 21-Dec-2007 11:01
even pam and tommy lee pulled over to film their oral antics= responsible driving right thar should show that footage at drivers ed-
From: sp00k
Date: 21-Dec-2007 11:07
 This is what happens when you text message at 220 mph
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 21-Dec-2007 12:10
...Unfortunately, you're not a lying cunt...hard to get a rise from me otherwise. ... A rise isn't the emotion I was looking for. I wasn't trying to piss you off, I was trying to change your mind. Big difference.
From: sp00k
Date: 21-Dec-2007 13:57
 If you look real close, you can see she's talking on the phone
From: gargoyle1
Date: 21-Dec-2007 14:54
that last one's really classy, NOT! Bet he'd cry like a baby if I just reached out and grabbed that phone and yanked really fucking hard.
From: auldrone [Auldrone]
Date: 21-Dec-2007 15:23
I don't mind giving inmates the choice to earn conjugal money, while giving them experience they can use to earn a living as a 'Ho once they get out. I'm against prisons competing with legitimate sex businesses, though. I'm against any proceeds going into anyones panties. I'm against compulsory precipitation. I'm against angst.
From: brainspore [Brainspore]
Date: 21-Dec-2007 17:22
From: thesickthsense [iseewhitepeople!] Date: 20-Dec-2007 16:12 They can't even enforce the pissant laws that already exist. For instance, rap? How many of you have been woken up by that junk at 3 in the fucking morning? I would mention rock, country, classical, whatever... but I've never heard that shit that loud, that late. Are they (yes, wiggers too) ever pulled over? ---------- Please tell me that you aren't implying that young black never get pulled over.
From: brainspore [Brainspore]
Date: 21-Dec-2007 17:23
(that should have read "...young black drivers...")
From: thesickthsense
[iseewhitepeople!]
Date: 21-Dec-2007 20:47
brainp, i've never seen an officer pool over a negro, unless it was absolutely needed. They can't dude. Pulling a negro over for 'sound nusance' is something that just doesn't fucking happen/. Unless they kill someone or damn near do, pullin them over id discriminating, ie - 'driving while black'. fucking stupid black bastrds.
From: ciaochowbella [I didn't do it and I wasn't there when it happened]
Date: 22-Dec-2007 04:37
Forced labor as a punishment only works if the labor is extremely unpleasant. Certain "jobs" could be created for those who are sentenced. Things like cutting grass with scissors or cleaning out bathrooms in truckstops. It isn't fair to give paying jobs to those who aren't getting paid, but it is fair to create jobs specifically for the purpose of punishment. However, to waste prison space on non-violent offenders goes against the grain for me. Prison should be not just punitive, but also a means to protect the public. Putting folks in jail for using a cell phone is not necessary. No solution is going to be perfect. Every situation has good and bad points. It would be Christmas-y indeed if there were a perfect solution to any problem.
From: thesickthsense
[iseewhitepeople!]
Date: 22-Dec-2007 10:44
** Forced labor as a punishment only works if the labor is extremely unpleasant. Who says it's about punishment? It's about debt payment. ** Certain "jobs" could be created for those who are sentenced. Things like ** cutting grass with scissors or cleaning out bathrooms in truckstops. It ** isn't fair to give paying jobs to those who aren't getting paid, but it ** is fair to create jobs specifically for the purpose of punishment. 1.) So, you are saying we should create inefficiency? Wouldn't that do what auldy is worried about? The more inneficient something is, the more men are needed to be arrested to do it. 2.) They would be payed. ** However, to waste prison space on non-violent offenders goes against the ** grain for me. Prison should be not just punitive, but also a means to ** protect the public. Putting folks in jail for using a cell phone is not ** necessary. The whole idea is to NOT put non-violent debtors in prison, and have them work their debts off as free individuals. ** No solution is going to be perfect. Every situation has good and bad ** points. It would be Christmas-y indeed if there were a perfect solution ** to any problem. That about wraps up 'No Shit 101'. Have a nice weekend class.
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 22-Dec-2007 11:18
...Things like cutting grass with scissors or cleaning out bathrooms in truckstops.... Why do you want to put honest truck stop custodians out of work? They work hard to perform a valuable service, and you want to thank them by firing them, in order to give their jobs to criminals?
From: doczzz
[dwarf fusion]
Date: 22-Dec-2007 14:23
How about letting them hang around outside of home depot or pick vegetables or whatever jobs the bosses here get caught giving to people who aren't eligible to work anyway? Dissolve their companies and fill in the gaps with 'convict temp agencies' until their positions are supplanted with American workers. Or do we need to protect the illegal immigrant's jobs too?
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 22-Dec-2007 14:48
No, we need to get rid of illegals, raise the wages of those jobs, and let unemployed Americans do them. Most migrant farm workers are working here legally. If we ever have more jobs than workers, well talk.
From: doczzz
[dwarf fusion]
Date: 22-Dec-2007 15:22
How do "we" raise the wages for jobs that illegal immigrants are taking? Should we raise taxes? How about bridges on the verge of collapse, roads that need repair, dikes that need building, and other threats to infrastructure...Where are all these companies eager to take on the work? Maybe most migrant farm workers are legal...so what jobs are the estimated 10 million illegal immigrants in this country doing? What about the jobs taken to China and India? Those should be counted as part of the equation. --- If all the jobs created by American companies are counted (domestic and shipped off to foreigners), there are more jobs than people. People will scrape shit from a toilet with their fingernails, if you pay them enough. That doesn't mean jobs are being "stolen" by inmates, if other people can't be paid the wage they want or need to do them.
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 22-Dec-2007 16:13
"We" raise them by denying them access to illegal laborers, and by refusing to work so cheaply. Road, bridge, and dam building/repairing, are very well paying jobs, with unskilled entry level jobs being cheaper, because of access to illegal labor. Those companies are all over the place, though they're often run by organized crime. They're working in the service industry, landscape and construction fields, to name a few. The agriculture industry mostly legalizes it's workers. They have special leeway. They are allowed X number of foreign workers. They have the paperwork, and, pretty much, the authority to make them legal. There is paperwork for any employer to legally hire non-citizens, but there's a maximum number allowed in the country every year. Off shore labor is different, and I probably wouldn't be against laws that forbid American companies sending American jobs across borders. Why would you want to count those jobs, if they're not open to Americans, living in America? If there's more jobs than people, how many of our 7.1 million unemployed people are unemployed simply because they're lazy?
From: doczzz
[dwarf fusion]
Date: 22-Dec-2007 16:29
<<"We" raise them by denying them access to illegal laborers, and by refusing to work so cheaply.>> Let's say that we are successful at both...then even fewer bridges, etc. will get repaired because the government can't afford it. So taxes get raised anyway. If Americans don't want their taxes raised, then they have to take advantage of things that save money, like a captive labor pool that can do work essential to keeping society safe and functioning. You can't have it both ways. *** <<There is paperwork for any employer to legally hire non-citizens, but there's a maximum number allowed in the country every year.>> True, but they are stipulated on the fact that no American can be found to do the work. However, it seems that the majority of people busted for hiring illegal immigrants do so because they don't want to pay competitive wages, not because Americans can't do the work. I hate people who bitch about jobs going to illegal immigrants, then don't want to pay fair prices and instead shop for dirt-cheap Chinese products at Walmart. You can't have it both ways. *** <<Why would you want to count those jobs, if they're not open to Americans, living in America? >> Well, that's the whole point. Those jobs get shipped off because the companies don't want to pay prevailing American wages, yet they want to sell their products to Americans at American prices. These companies want to have their cake and eat it too. If Congress had any balls, this type of thing wouldn't happen, or the tariffs on these guys would be prohibitive. You can't have it both ways.
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 22-Dec-2007 17:02
Very few, if any, road workers are illegals. If so, they're the ones waving the flags. Though most of the flag wavers I see are white women. I was offered $25 an hour to labor on roads. It's a sweet job, that's hard to land because there's not enough demand for workers. The Ag jobs in question are hard to fill with our citizens, because of the nature of the job. These people travel constantly, and have to live in cramped conditions with few of the luxuries we have in our homes. It's a different culture, quite like carnival work, that most Americans don't embrace. Again, off-shoring is a different subject. I'm against it, and have said so, here, many times. If those manufacturing jobs came back, they'd be in too high a demand to be rewarding criminals with. You seem to want rich people to be sentenced to pay money (something of which they have plenty), and poor people to sentenced to forced labor, preventing them from supporting their families. How is that equal protection?
From: doczzz
[dwarf fusion]
Date: 22-Dec-2007 17:48
I think that they all should pay money. I suggested a percentage of incomes as the way to punish. How is that unfair? If the Ag jobs are so difficult to fill and Americans don't like them, then why can't the convicts do them? Are there other categories of jobs that American's don't like?...convict labor! I never said road workers were illegal. What I said was that bridges (think Minneapolis collapse), dikes (think New Orleans), and other public works projects would be ideal to put inmates to work doing, since the gubmint can't afford to pay the "market" costs of having someone hold a sign on the side of the road for $25/hour. Let construction companies use convict labor for government projects, with the condition that they decrease the cost to government appropriately. What's wrong with that? Do you think convicts are the only segment of society that shouldn't contribute to supporting themselves? Even welfare mothers have been moved to workfare, for the most part...
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 22-Dec-2007 18:16
...I think that they all should pay money. I suggested a percentage of incomes as the way to punish. How is that unfair? ... But you want to force into labor, those who can't pay. A person may be able to support their family, but not pay a fine, too. When ...If the Ag jobs are so difficult to fill and Americans don't like them, then why can't the convicts do them? Are there other categories of jobs that American's don't like?...convict labor! ... It's impractical. Would you want a bunch of convicts on your farm? ...I never said road workers were illegal. What I said was that bridges (think Minneapolis collapse), dikes (think New Orleans), and other public works projects would be ideal to put inmates to work doing, since the gubmint can't afford to pay the "market" costs of having someone hold a sign on the side of the road for $25/hour. ... Do you really want convicts building the bridge you drive over every day, or the dam that prevents an ocean from leveling your city? I'd much rather have skilled workers who care about their jobs. Convict labor wouldn't have stopped either of them from falling. That's the fault of engineers and inspectors. ...Let construction companies use convict labor for government projects, with the condition that they decrease the cost to government appropriately. What's wrong with that? ... It gives incentive to falsely convict innocent people. "We could fix every bridge in the country, in one year, if we only had 3 million more convicts" is something I never want said. I have no problem with some voluntary work programs (cleaning crews), as long as their not in competition with legitimate business, done on small scales, and nobody profits from it. ...Do you think convicts are the only segment of society that shouldn't contribute to supporting themselves? Even welfare mothers have been moved to workfare, for the most part... I'd like to see prisons that are more self sustaining. Much of the work in prisons is done by inmates, laundry, cooking, farming, custodial, to name a few.
From: doczzz
[dwarf fusion]
Date: 22-Dec-2007 18:38
<<But you want to force into labor, those who can't pay.>> What's the alternative? Let people without jobs who commit crimes go unpunished? ******** <<It's impractical.>> Not if you have shock collars, GPS, armed supervisors, and chain gangs. ******** <<Would you want a bunch of convicts on your farm?>> If it kept the fruit from rotting on the trees, and gets the product to market, hell yeah! Otherwise, we could let half of Mexico in the door, and make the taxpayers cover their medical bills, infrastructure improvements and housing not paid by the employers. The govt already pays these costs for inmates, so no harm done. ******** <<Do you really want convicts building the bridge you drive over every day, or the dam that prevents an ocean from leveling your city?>> If the alternative is the bridge collapsing or the Mississippi river flooding my city, hell yeah! I don't think *every* job in construction requires a skilled professional. Anyone can dig a ditch or haul a sack of rocks. ******** <<That's the fault of engineers and inspectors. >> No it's not. Engineers will be the first to tell you that nothing built can last indefinitely without maintenance, and inspectors say that 50% of US bridge infrastructure (for instance) needs repairs that aren't being done. http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/actionplan07.cfm ******** <<It gives incentive to falsely convict innocent people.>> Do you think the bridge inspectors and county budget officers aren't going to go around planting evidence at crime scenes? That sounds mighty paranoid. That's what lawyers, chain of evidence procedures, and constitutional protections are for.
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 22-Dec-2007 19:01
...What's the alternative? Let people without jobs who commit crimes go unpunished? ... Jail, confiscation of property. ...Not if you have shock collars, GPS, armed supervisors, and chain gangs. ... This saves us money, how? Besides, migrant ag workers travel constantly. It's impractical to move them, and their temporary housing, around so much. ...Otherwise, we could let half of Mexico in the door, and make the taxpayers cover their medical bills, infrastructure improvements and housing not paid by the employers.... Ag workers are here legally, and pay taxes. They're documented they're monitored. Sure, some aren't legal, and there is probably much abuse. It's not a perfect, or even good system, but it's a system. These are not the Mexicans you're looking for. ...I don't think *every* job in construction requires a skilled professional. Anyone can dig a ditch or haul a sack of rocks.... Correct. Those are the entry level jobs where people learn the skill to advance themselves in the field. ...No it's not. Engineers will be the first to tell you that nothing built can last indefinitely without maintenance, and inspectors say that 50% of US bridge infrastructure (for instance) needs repairs that aren't being done. ... Which is why I shared the blame with inspectors, and too many others to list. A shortage of labor is not contributing factor in the failures of those structures, though. It wasn't a shortage of money, either. Federal funds were appropriated for both of those specific projects, but the money was diverted elsewhere, by politicians. ...Do you think the bridge inspectors and county budget officers aren't going to go around planting evidence at crime scenes? That sounds mighty paranoid. That's what lawyers, chain of evidence procedures, and constitutional protections are for. ... I suppose this is why you're such a big supporter of the death penalty? You wouldn't be paranoid driving around backwoods Alabama if false convictions equaled money in Boss Hogs pocket?
From: doczzz
[dwarf fusion]
Date: 22-Dec-2007 19:20
<<It gives incentive to falsely convict innocent people.>> That's what I've always said. Pay up or put out. ****** <<Ag workers are here legally, and pay taxes.>> They don't pay enough taxes to cover their medical bills (trust me, I know). I suppose it's okay for the health care sector to subsidize farms that don't want to pay Americans competitive wages though. Fine with me, I just pass the costs on to my paying patients. ****** <<Those are the entry level jobs where people learn the skill to advance themselves in the field.>> I didn't say *every* labor job had to go to a convict. There are plenty of construction jobs in the private sector. I said jobs paid for by government on projects that NEED to get done (like overdue bridge and dike repairs), but that they can't afford and let stagnate until a disaster happens. ****** <<Federal funds were appropriated for both of those specific projects, but the money was diverted elsewhere, by politicians.>> To cover shortfalls in health and welfare programs. Once again, we can blame an administration that spends like there is no tomorrow, but refuses to tax. The money has to come from somewhere. Let it some of it come from convict labor. ****** <<I suppose this is why you're such a big supporter of the death penalty?>> I've discussed my views of the death penalty ad nauseam...that's a distraction from what we're discussing here. Anyway, I'm not talking about the most dangerous category of offenders...they can be the ones who stay in the prison walls and do the laundry. I'm talking about scofflaws who get thrown in jail because they can't afford their fines. They can stay in jail until they pay the labor equivalent of their fine.
From: roaddog [pclynn]
Date: 22-Dec-2007 23:47
If the idiots just have to talk on the phone while they drive then they should use a Blue Tooth headset. I had some fat froggy bitch almost ran me into oncoming traffic the other day while she was stuffing a McD down her throat and talking on the phone at the same time and just slowly coasting into the side of my Jeep..When we got to the red light. I yelled at the bitch and she acted like I did something wrong. She was prolly drunk too.
From: absintheredux
[Green Death]
Date: 23-Dec-2007 01:50
Faith, Doc! I do believe that you reinvented the Prison Farm, that noble invention which post-bellum continued under another label the no longer fashionable ante-bellum plantation (mainly for the benefit of Yankees and carpetbaggers of course). Goes to show that a good idea, like a De Beers diamond, is forever.
From: auldrone [Auldrone]
Date: 23-Dec-2007 08:24
I'd like to see prisons that are more self sustaining. Much of the work in prisons is done by inmates, laundry, cooking, farming, custodial, shanking, bum poking, Republican fund raising, to name a few.
From: entityzero
[And one day, suddenly, there it was]
Date: 23-Dec-2007 13:39
Convicts were brought in to restore an old building in my town. My objection was that their work uniforms were red shirts with blue jeans, the same uniform I am required to wear for my job. Whenever I went by the work site I felt like an escapee.
From: other [unclassified]
Date: 25-Dec-2007 06:42
saves on transportation ---up to 1865 we had to go to Africa to round them up, now we do it locally. I got to watch even jaywalkers get 10 days last time I visited court...they didn't have the money to pay...cheap labor now for rent to high bidders. Anonymous summonses arrive in mail and after-the-fact surprise surcharges the state has no obligation to tell you about and you have a bench warrant now---way it is here.
Updated: 26-Dec-2007 20:54
| 
