What Would Lincoln Say?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

And you also said:

"FPI now produces all military helmets, ammunition belts, bullet-proof vests, ID tags, shirts, pants, tents, bags, and canteens. Along with war supplies, prison workers supply 98% of the entire market for equipment assembly services; 93% of paints and paintbrushes; 92% of stove assembly; 46% of body armor; 36% of home appliances; 30% of headphones/microphones/speakers; and 21% of office furniture.

FPI’s net sales in 2008 were 854 million dollars. It pays its “employees” anywhere between 21 cents and a dollar an hour. "

I think your implication is fairly clear. The US employs slave labor (black and whites but your original point is that we have found a loophole that allows us to keep as may black prisoners as existed slaves) to manufacture - among other things - military helmets, ammunition belts, bullet-proof vests. Thing that allow the big, bad USofA to make war, on the backs of ‘slaves’.

What should we do with people who commit crimes? Should they just sit on the asses all day? Should the American taxpayer just foot the bill or should we ask anything in return (i.e. labor, goods, whatever). To do otherwise is ‘slavery’? Is that the jist?

Do we only put people behind bars for murder or robbery or rape? What’s the deterent for those who would commit ‘victimless’ crimes? Do we just allow people to break any number of laws? As long as you deem it victimless, well, no harm no foul, be on your way? You’ve made a lot of statements about what’s wrong (insane as they may be). Tell us all how it should be.

82

[quote]ProwlCat wrote:

Have you considered that you actually have a mental problem?[/quote]

The only person around here that has a mental problem is you arsehole.

83

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
pushharder wrote:

Your rights are stripped far more by things like the Patriot Act than they ever will be by a Democrat.

How many Democrat Senators voted against the Patriot Act? One, was it?
[/quote]

Oh I know. But also realize the political ramifications that voting it down would have brought- Herr Rove would have turned that into a massive, “The Democrats hate freedom” kind of trip right after.

Does it justify it? Absolutely not. However, I think there was more to that then came out.

[quote]
Well, then I anticipate that the Obama Administration will implement a speedy and complete restoration of all of the rights stripped by the Patriot Act, and a relinquishment of all of the executive powers unconstitutionally seized by his predecessor.

Actually, I don’t anticipate it at all. Do you?[/quote]

No, I don’t. I do hope that some parts will be rolled back, but I do fear that the ones that get dismantled will only be done by court challenges that overturn them, rock by rock.

Once the government gets power, they are loathe to give it up. However, the ideal of legislating such things, especially the more controversial sections of the PATRIOT Act (such as holding records on what books are taken out of libraries) is certainly more of a Republican notion than a Democratic one.

If the Republicans became the party of the ACLU, I would consider voting that way far more often.

84

[quote]aussie486 wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:

Have you considered that you actually have a mental problem?

The only person around here that has a mental problem is you arsehole.

[/quote]

Yeah. You’re rubber and I’m glue.

85

[quote]ProwlCat wrote:

Uh, yeah. I’m silly. [/quote]

Happy we agree.

No, I can’t say as I have.

I have considered, however, that your wife may be right.

86

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

If the Republicans became the party of the ACLU, I would consider voting that way far more often.[/quote]

And if the Democrats became the party of the Second Amendment, small government, low taxes, fiscal responsibility and greater personal freedom, I would consider voting that way far more often.

Of course, then they’d no longer be Democrats, but Libertarians. :stuck_out_tongue:

87

Varq, what did I do, man?

88

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

If the Republicans became the party of the ACLU, I would consider voting that way far more often.

And if the Democrats became the party of the Second Amendment, small government, low taxes, fiscal responsibility and greater personal freedom, I would consider voting that way far more often.

Of course, then they’d no longer be Democrats, but Libertarians. :P[/quote]

I was just going to say, they sure as fuck wouldn’t be Republicans.

I like libertarians, but I just think that corporations and “the market” cannot be left alone and trusted not to fuck over everyone who isn’t a shareholder. That, to me, means I could not vote that way with clear conscience.

89

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Varq, what did I do, man?[/quote]

I don’t know. What did you do?

90

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Varq, what did I do, man?

I don’t know. What did you do?[/quote]

“Fool me twice, shame on Texas; fool Tennessee, shame on the evildoers… aww shit Dick I can’t get this damn thing right…”

Cheney: “Did you just call me shitdick?”

91

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Varq, what did I do, man?

I don’t know. What did you do?[/quote]

Heh. No, I was just asking if you mean to say that imprisonment is slavery, period. And, if yes, is it justifiable?

92

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Varq, what did I do, man?

I don’t know. What did you do?

Heh. No, I was just asking if you mean to say that imprisonment is slavery, period. And, if yes, is it justifiable? [/quote]

Gee, I had thought that V’s remarks, and line of reasoning, while tangential, were just hyperbolic. The thread reached its apogee, and its trajectory has been parabolic. This you can secant you? I may be missin’ the point, but perhaps the reasoning is circular…or there has been an ellipsis.

Anyhow, I have lost my focus, and this post will be cosined to the comic sections.

94

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Varq, what did I do, man?

I don’t know. What did you do?

Heh. No, I was just asking if you mean to say that imprisonment is slavery, period. And, if yes, is it justifiable?

Gee, I had thought that V’s remarks, and line of reasoning, while tangential, were just hyperbolic. The thread reached its apogee, and its trajectory has been parabolic. This you can secant you? I may be missin’ the point, but perhaps the reasoning is circular…or there has been an ellipsis.

Anyhow, I have lost my focus, and this post will be cosined to the comic sections. [/quote]

I take it you like the new avatar, Dr. I figured, why not, I’ve been up to my eyeballs in trig functions lately. Recently finished with inverse functions, and just tonight finished a section dealing with manipulation of identities.

As far as this thread, and my question, sometimes I’m not sure when Varq is arguing something he truly believes, or if he’s playing Devil’s advocate. And, with a with strong libertarian slant, I’m not sure when it’s a little hyperbole (or alot). Or, if honestly feels the way he does about certain issues. I like his posts though, even when I don’t agree with him.

95

[quote]Chushin wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Varq, what did I do, man?

I don’t know. What did you do?

Heh. No, I was just asking if you mean to say that imprisonment is slavery, period. And, if yes, is it justifiable?

Gee, I had thought that V’s remarks, and line of reasoning, while tangential, were just hyperbolic. The thread reached its apogee, and its trajectory has been parabolic. This you can secant you? I may be missin’ the point, but perhaps the reasoning is circular…or there has been an ellipsis.

Anyhow, I have lost my focus, and this post will be cosined to the comic sections.

Talking in circles again, Doc?[/quote]

Easy as pi, once you find all the angles.

96

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Varq, what did I do, man?

I don’t know. What did you do?

Heh. No, I was just asking if you mean to say that imprisonment is slavery, period. And, if yes, is it justifiable? [/quote]

No, of course not.

Magarhe had remarked that all the slaves were now offshore, and I was responding that according to the 13th amendment, convicts could constitutionally be used as slaves, then proceeded to give examples of how they were.

ProwlCat then got all huffy about how I was accusing his beloved nation of instigating a conspiracy to round up colored folks and lock 'em away to make guns for murderous Uncle Sam, or some such twaddle.

The fact is, despite the cozy mythology of U.S. History, slavery still exists, both in an official capacity (prison) and in an unofficial capacity (illegal aliens forced to work to pay off their passage to America, often as prostitutes). Incarceration is not synonymous with slavery, any more than it is synonymous with rape. But it would be naive to think that it never happens, and that people are profiting from it.

Slavery, I mean. Not rape. Unless we’re talking about sex slaves.

Certainly I think that criminals should be imprisoned and punished. I also think that hard labor can be very rehabilitative, and should be included as part of a convict’s sentence.

However, for the government to use taxpayer-subsidized cheap prison labor to compete against private enterprises (which must by law pay their workers a minimum wage), take in handsome profits, and then turn around and sneer at the Chinese for doing the exact same thing, is at best hypocritical, and at worst a bit sleazy, in my opinion.

97

[quote]Sloth wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Varq, what did I do, man?

I don’t know. What did you do?

Heh. No, I was just asking if you mean to say that imprisonment is slavery, period. And, if yes, is it justifiable?

Gee, I had thought that V’s remarks, and line of reasoning, while tangential, were just hyperbolic. The thread reached its apogee, and its trajectory has been parabolic. This you can secant you? I may be missin’ the point, but perhaps the reasoning is circular…or there has been an ellipsis.

Anyhow, I have lost my focus, and this post will be cosined to the comic sections.

I take it you like the new avatar, Dr. I figured, why not, I’ve been up to my eyeballs in trig functions lately. Recently finished with inverse functions, and just tonight finished a section dealing with manipulation of identities.

As far as this thread, and my question, sometimes I’m not sure when Varq is arguing something he truly believes, or if he’s playing Devil’s advocate. And, with a with strong libertarian slant, I’m not sure when it’s a little hyperbole (or alot). Or, if honestly feels the way he does about certain issues. I like his posts though, even when I don’t agree with him.[/quote]

A radiant insight, by any measure.
As for hyperbole, I respect it, but every one has limits, in theory.
But why go on about the mean value of slavery? There is no calculus of its derived value, compared to imprisonment. In this thread, it torus apart.

Well, back to the sin-cere posts.

98

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

A radiant insight, by any measure.
As for hyperbole, I respect it, but every one has limits, in theory.
But why go on about the mean value of slavery? There is no calculus of its derived value, compared to imprisonment. In this thread, it torus apart.

Well, back to the sin-cere posts. [/quote]

I almost brought out the graphing calculator to make sure I had read this correctly. lol.

99

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

Gee, I had thought that V’s remarks, and line of reasoning, while tangential, were just hyperbolic. The thread reached its apogee, and its trajectory has been parabolic. This you can secant you? I may be missin’ the point, but perhaps the reasoning is circular…or there has been an ellipsis.

Anyhow, I have lost my focus, and this post will be cosined to the comic sections.

A radiant insight, by any measure.
As for hyperbole, I respect it, but every one has limits, in theory.
But why go on about the mean value of slavery? There is no calculus of its derived value, compared to imprisonment. In this thread, it torus apart.

Well, back to the sin-cere posts. [/quote]

I’m impressed, Doc. And here I thought you only did bicycle puns.

100

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Varq, what did I do, man?

I don’t know. What did you do?

Heh. No, I was just asking if you mean to say that imprisonment is slavery, period. And, if yes, is it justifiable?

No, of course not.

Magarhe had remarked that all the slaves were now offshore, and I was responding that according to the 13th amendment, convicts could constitutionally be used as slaves, then proceeded to give examples of how they were.

ProwlCat then got all huffy about how I was accusing his beloved nation of instigating a conspiracy to round up colored folks and lock 'em away to make guns for murderous Uncle Sam, or some such twaddle.

The fact is, despite the cozy mythology of U.S. History, slavery still exists, both in an official capacity (prison) and in an unofficial capacity (illegal aliens forced to work to pay off their passage to America, often as prostitutes). Incarceration is not synonymous with slavery, any more than it is synonymous with rape. But it would be naive to think that it never happens, and that people are profiting from it.

Slavery, I mean. Not rape. Unless we’re talking about sex slaves.

Certainly I think that criminals should be imprisoned and punished. I also think that hard labor can be very rehabilitative, and should be included as part of a convict’s sentence.

However, for the government to use taxpayer-subsidized cheap prison labor to compete against private enterprises (which must by law pay their workers a minimum wage), take in handsome profits, and then turn around and sneer at the Chinese for doing the exact same thing, is at best hypocritical, and at worst a bit sleazy, in my opinion.[/quote]

Relevant:

Two lawsuits have been filed against two Pennsylvania judges accused of taking more than $2 million in kickbacks to send youth offenders to privately run detention centers.

The suits name Luzerne County Judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan as well as the individuals who allegedly paid the kickbacks and other defendants. They were filed in federal court late Thursday and Friday on behalf of hundreds of children and their families who were alleged victims of the corruption.

Prosecutors allege Ciavarella and Conahan took $2.6 million in payoffs to put juvenile offenders in lockups run by PA Child Care LLC and a sister company, possibly tainting the convictions of thousands of juvenile offenders.

The judges pleaded guilty to fraud in federal court in Scranton on Thursday. Their plea agreements call for sentences of more than seven years in prison.

For years, youth advocacy groups complained that Ciavarella, who presided over juvenile court, was overly harsh and trampled on kids? constitutional rights. Ciavarella sent a quarter of his juvenile defendants to detention centers from 2002 to 2006, compared with a statewide rate of one in 10.

?Ciavarella, in the most cynical fashion, assured that there would be ample juveniles adjudicated delinquent and placed in PA Child Care,? one of the suits said. ?As juvenile judge, he ignored law, ignored the constitution, and ignored basic human decency. He provided quick ?justice,? adjudicated children delinquent and ripped them from their parents in record time and in astonishing numbers.?

http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2009/02/17/kids-for-cash/