tubby_mcgee

Exactly! Inflation rate is near 1.2% Interest rates for borrowers below 3% Gas under $2 Life is great under Biden!

This ever get fixed?

Anderson? Anderson? Adderly?

Okay. I'll give you Neal and Beurline for Gronk.

Liberals fell hook, line and sinker for the entire Covid story from start to finish. The rest of us mocked them from start to finish. We tried telling them. In the end, we had the last laugh. Ding! Time for another booster!

If there is video evidence? Is that needed? A 17 year old kid here, stabbed someone with a knife a week ago. Killed him. The police have the snapchat video of it. Should he get an appeal?

Cody

For one thing, lol, if someone or a group decides they are they are the justice system, then uhh... they are. It's like 2 wolves and 2 sheep sitting down to "debate" what's for supper. Back to the topic There's isn't an entire group with motive to convict Johnny "fockbag" Hoodlum, JR. There are motives at the level you referenced. Allllll of you and the rest of your liberals outrage simply wouldn't be there if you didn't see Trump as a threat. Ted Nugent and LOTS OF OTHERS....THOUSANDS of others say wayyyyyy more things that should rile you diaper wearing, lipstick wearing, tampon using liberals up, but they aren't a threat. So you don't care. Trump is a threat. So liberals start pondering "How can we remove the threat?" -- that's it. Everyone knows it. And FYI, just because someone is FOUND guilty, doesn't mean they ARE guilty. Sort of the like the situation I gave you. You might not be guilty, but if a group that you can't stop, DECIDES you are, well, what are your options?

Sure. Imagine you live here, near me, and someone accuses you of something you didn't do and I hold court of my own at my residence and you're found guilty (I'd make sure you were), then, I take you to a room, people pound 40% of the blood out of you, would you be okay with that, since you were found guilty? Or...heck, even since you were accused.

You have to understand, those that support him, see his being charged with these crimes as being done so to stop him from running. They see motive. Just like they see motive with bringing more poor people into the country to use up resources that we don't have enough of already. A current president who was not charged with anything because he was deemed "incompetent to stand trial" -- folks have a problem with what at the least can be argued as a double standard.

So, no using evidence allowed to convict anyone ever? So lets let everyone go? I don't like that idea. I know you didn't say that exactly but it can be inferred by your comment.

I agree with better background checks. But they can still find guns. You can't, however commit a crime though, without committing a crime. Hindsight is 20/20. Commit a crime, get rid of the perp. I agree Johnny...that's covered in #2 below:

A lot of things that humans have access to, lead to problems. My guns aren't a problem. My torx head screw driver isn't a problem. My food intake isn't a problem. My alcohol use isn't a problem. Should steroids be illegal for the common guy? Should marijuana use be illegal? Only reason I don't want it legal in public...Is I hate the smell. I shouldn't be subject to it. If drinking alcohol meant that while folks did it, some of it sprayed all over and went on me and down my throat, I'd be against it also. Additionally if the penalties for drinking and driving were severe enough, it would all but come to a stop.

If that started, much crime would be reduced. Problem is America doesn't truly want to reduce crime. Suuuuurrreee ...the words "OH but yesssss we truly want to reduce crime!" are used often. But those words don't get it done. People GLADLY use words. "We should be nice to people", "People need to just get along" -- "We should ban guns" - folks think when they say those things, that they are offering good advice on decreasing crime. Words of "Gosh I I really want to reduce crime" don't reduce crime. Punishments that are severe enough do reduce crime.

Yeah. But...no. That's a DECISION also. Just like "should I rape this person or not". These folks that can't handle alcohol or drugs, would eventually be weeded out by the points system. They choose to use alcohol, and if it makes them beat their wife or whatever...buh-bye. Sort of like why we don't give DUI's to those that don't drink and drive. I don't drink at all, but i think it should absolutely be allowed and enjoyed.

Executions would take place only with video or dna evidence.

Bingo. Proof the gubment wants NOTHING to do with slowing poverty. ZEEERRRRRO. The ONLY ONLY ONLY ONLY reason they want those poor people here, is one word. Votes. Nothing more. They'd GLADLY have MORE poverty, MORE crime, MORE problems if it means VOTES for them. That's ALL those folks are seen as. No can come up with a rational argument to that.

Doubled sure...but...doubling of a slap on wrist isn't much. A while back I had a post about a "point system".. When you hit XX points, you're done. Either in prison forever or a bullet in the head. LIke when you hit 100 points, you're a goner. Basic speeding = 1/4 point. Severe speeding in automobile (like doubling speed limit or going over 120 mph without a reason, etc) = 2 points Rape = 100 points. Murder = 100 points Attempted rape = 100 points Molesting a kid = 100 points Theft of anything = 5 points Sliding scale on theft based on dollar amount...maxes out at 95 points? Maybe 100 points? Vandalism on a sliding $ scale... The last time I referenced, this, someone put "Cooking Seafood in the Microwave = $100 points" or something like that. lol. Through all of this, no one has came up with a way to reduce crime as effectively as harsher penalties that are actually enforced. When I ask, usually I get responses like "Have the police quit bullying black people" or "we don't need those harsh penalties, we just need people to be nice" (and comments like this will get likes, thumbs up and hip hip hoorays).

That was my entire point of this thread. If crime is your business, you should be permanently put out of business. See below:

That's not this topic, but I'll bite. 1. Go to work. Some can't. I get that. Some simply don't. They are a big part of the problem. We can't justifiably just "rid the Earth of them" like we can criminals. Poverty is often brought on by the decisions of those in poverty. A victim of a crime doesn't make a decision to be a victim of a crime. 2. Criminals make a conscious decision to commit crime. Many poor people don't make the direct decision to be in their situation. 3.) IF we penalized crime like I suggest, CRIME would be reduced by 80-90%. Think of how much money would be saved due to: A.) looters not destroying Targets, etc. B.) Folks not stealing from self checkouts C.) Folks not stealing in general D.) Not having as many police E. ) Not having as many security guards This list could be 200 items long. Now, with that money saved, think of how many of those in poverty could be helped.

It also costs like $38 for 2 Tylenol from the hospital. But does it REALLY cost that much? And SHOULD IT? How is it an ACT if we follow through? I agree there isn't much THOUGHT behind it. Its because we don't want to slow or deter crime. Its an ACT that we want to deter crime. We don't. If we did ACTUALLY want to, we'd start doing things that actually would deter crime. I HONESTLY believe that the the US is kept at a "certain" crime level. If crime disappeared, or were even cut in half, MILLIONS of jobs would disappear. Yippee skippee. What's the difference where something ranks if it isn't working? Personally, I want actual results, not high rankings.

Yep. Absolutely. Quit wasting money. "You were found guilty and there was video evidence of your crime, court adjourned" and they walk them to a room with a good drainage system, shoot them in the head, rinse them off, shrink wrap them, give them to the family. Entire "after court process" is 18 minutes. Tops. Less with a good "dryer system" in place. I'd even accept building massive prisons with "in prison til you're dead" penalties if society can't get behind option#1. Crime would decrease due to: 1.) repeat offending isn't possible 2.) fear of not being able to be a repeat offender

And spinoff, back to my topic... I think that's what the US should do. Spend money on Prisons For a drop in the bucket that we sent to Ukraine, we could build massive prisons. Lots of them. Start giving "til you die in prison" sentences. Or capital punishment for things like this. Even if mentally ill.

I think Jimmy Carter has gotten more votes on Geek Club than he did in the entire 1980 election.