.
Blogs
Tom Thumb April 14, 2014 at 03:13 pm
Harry Reid quote on 4/14/14: "We can't have an American people that just violate the law andRead More walk away from it."
Just Tim April 14, 2014 at 05:07 pm
This simply comes down to money. A guy in a suit with a briefcase can steal more in a day, thanRead More thugs could steal in a lifetime. Our two political parties decided to bail the suits out, donations, donations, donations. In the meantime, the guy smoking a joint on the corner, looking for a job gets busted and does time. This isn't about corporations running prisons or verbiage from presidents from either party. This is simply about money for the pols, so they can run again.
Don April 15, 2014 at 10:44 am
Well a simple answer solely related to people being in "prison" First, prison is muchRead More different than jail. Jail is for the stupid and malcontents. Prison is for the serious offender: Drug dealers, rapists, Armed robbery, felonious burglary, and yes Murder in varying degrees to name a few So the short answer is this: There are so many in "Prison" because they committed some serious Sh*&. Understand? Second short answer: Commit less serious Sh*& crimes. Third short answer: You don't want them in prison, have them move in with you. Ah thought so Fourt and final short answer: Free up the California gun laws and concealed carry weapons so that the innocent, most of us have the opportunity to protect ourselves if the police can intercede in time Do you have better clairty yet Here's the final answer: protect the innocent first, the law abiders. You don't like the laws change the laws as they're our laws. Make prison a place you don't want to go too and crime will also reduce, reduce to some other level at least; yes protect us first though must be the first priority, not theirs, they had their chance and blew it.
Shripathi Kamath April 7, 2014 at 11:00 pm
"Should anyone also be allowed to lead it?" Good one! That would depend upon the group'sRead More members. If the group's charter is advocacy, and the NAACP is a private organization, then its bylaws will dictate who can be a leader. If it wants to be taken seriously, then it'll pick the best candidate to lead, and its influence and advocacy will be potent if it is not a sham. It'd be rather impossible, for example, a Muslim to head the Vatican, than it'd be for a white to lead the NAACP. I'd think that fundamental commitment to the cause would prohibit the former, but not the latter. Your larger point makes one think. Would the Klan accept a black Jew, for example, as its Imperial Wizard? The more insular the group, the less sense it makes to have an 'outsider' no matter how committed the person may be to the cause.
Status Quo April 8, 2014 at 05:38 pm
The "Klan" lacks standing in all forums.
Things I Learned April 9, 2014 at 12:13 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0IUR4gkPIE
See more »