- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty
Posted on 10/5/17 at 8:11 pm
Posted on 10/5/17 at 8:11 pm
7
Posted on 10/5/17 at 8:12 pm to hawgfaninc
Well...good luck getting the left to subscribe to that idea. They're not accountable for their actions.
Posted on 10/5/17 at 8:13 pm to hawgfaninc
Why? Who do we get whine and blame?
Posted on 10/5/17 at 8:13 pm to hawgfaninc
If a drunk driver kills someone, does that mean you can keep sober people from buying cars?
Posted on 10/5/17 at 8:21 pm to Bunyan
quote:
If a drunk driver kills someone, does that mean you can keep sober people from buying cars?
You make a valid point.
However, should we make laws that turn sober (as in your example) into criminals.
For example, having 0.08 BAC is high enough, yet some states have it at 0.05. Thats not for safety, that is a cash grab.
I generally agree with the sentiment that individuals are responsible for crime. But I am also critical of the interpretations of law depending on the circumstances.
Posted on 10/6/17 at 6:37 am to hawgfaninc
quote:
We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty
Truth
Fact
BOOM
Posted on 10/6/17 at 6:48 am to volod
quote:
yet some states have it at 0.05. Thats not for safety, that is a cash grab
That's why we have 50 of them...leave the shitty ones
Posted on 10/6/17 at 8:04 am to hawgfaninc
I find it amusing that the same person that signed civil asset forfeiture into law is quoted as saying we must hold the guilty responsible.
Posted on 10/6/17 at 8:05 am to hawgfaninc
Posted on 10/6/17 at 8:21 am to hawgfaninc
The GOAT. 
Posted on 10/6/17 at 8:29 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
I find it amusing that the same person that signed civil asset forfeiture into law is quoted as saying we must hold the guilty responsible.
How old are you? If you're old enough, you should know that the need for that law was for use against people like the fictional Tony Montana, to keep them from using their money and assets to continue pissing on our laws, importing poison to Americans.
It is an object lesson in unintended consequences, and the slippery slope of ever more government law and regulation, however. All the more reason to be a staunch conservative.
Posted on 10/6/17 at 8:34 am to troyt37
quote:
How old are you? If you're old enough, you should know that the need for that law was for use against people like the fictional Tony Montana, to keep them from using their money and assets to continue pissing on our laws, importing poison to Americans
This is really dumb.
Posted on 10/6/17 at 8:35 am to Rougarou13
quote:
Well...good luck getting the left to subscribe to that idea. They're not accountable for their actions.
Man this board is so 'us vs them' it's pretty insane.
Posted on 10/6/17 at 8:38 am to MrCarton
quote:
This is really dumb.
Why did you leave out his second portion, which explains what happened with that "well intentioned" idea?
Posted on 10/6/17 at 8:44 am to troyt37
quote:
If you're old enough, you should know that the need for that law was for use against people like the fictional Tony Montana, to keep them from using their money and assets to continue pissing on our laws, importing poison to Americans.
I think most would agree that writing laws to fight fictional characters is a bad idea.
Eta: that doesnt stop congress from writing laws that fight fictional boogeymen all the time, however.
quote:
All the more reason to be a staunch conservative.
Was Reagan a staunch conservative?
This post was edited on 10/6/17 at 8:49 am
Posted on 10/6/17 at 8:47 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Why did you leave out his second portion, which explains what happened with that "well intentioned" idea?
Oh, I'll address that too.
Hint: it wasn't well intentioned and neither are gun control laws.
Posted on 10/6/17 at 8:48 am to MrCarton
Yeah, I chose the quotes for a reason.
Point is, it was dumb to call the guy dumb for just explaining the political dynamics of something for which the person who he was explaining it to seemed not to understand.
Point is, it was dumb to call the guy dumb for just explaining the political dynamics of something for which the person who he was explaining it to seemed not to understand.
This post was edited on 10/6/17 at 8:50 am
Posted on 10/6/17 at 8:49 am to Rougarou13
quote:
Well...good luck getting the left to subscribe to that idea. They're not accountable for their actions.
To be fair, George W. Bush, Cheney, Chaim "Bill" Kristol, and the neocons have stripped away more of our freedoms than progressives have IMO. Obviously many Republican voters have learned from this, but it's still the truth.
This post was edited on 10/6/17 at 8:50 am
Posted on 10/6/17 at 8:49 am to troyt37
quote:
It is an object lesson in unintended consequences, and the slippery slope of ever more government law and regulation, however. All the more reason to be a staunch conservative.
The consequences were intended, not "unintended".
So when fake conservatives like Reagan sign unconstitutional and morally wrong laws like this into effect, it's merely an unintended consequence? That's bullshite. Try again.
This post was edited on 10/6/17 at 8:50 am
Posted on 10/6/17 at 8:50 am to SirWinston
quote:yep
To be fair, George W. Bush, Cheney, Chaim "Bill" Kristol, and the neocons have stripped away more of our freedoms than progressives have IMO.
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News