quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Here's what I'd want President Obama to say: "We have an immigration policy in place that is used to determine who is deported and who isn't. This policy will be followed with regards to Justin Bieber, as it is to every other immigrant."

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Here's what I'd want President Obama to say: "We have an immigration policy in place that is used to determine who is deported and who isn't. This policy will be followed with regards to Justin Bieber, as it is to every other immigrant."

Bwahahhahaha.... I completely agree.
Of course that won't happen since we are a good capitalistic society and he has the money to buy justice. If some poor black kid had gotten caught with 10% of the stuff Bieber has he'd be in prison for 20 years minimum.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Here's what I'd want President Obama to say: "We have an immigration policy in place that is used to determine who is deported and who isn't. This policy will be followed with regards to Justin Bieber, as it is to every other immigrant."

Bwahahhahaha.... I completely agree.
Of course that won't happen since we are a good capitalistic society and he has the money to buy justice. If some poor black kid had gotten caught with 10% of the stuff Bieber has he'd be in prison for 20 years minimum.

It's not just poor black kids that would be locked up by now. It's all non-celebrities that would be jailed. I have to wonder how much leeway a judge has in sentencing. If someone didn't get the "Bieber treatment" by the same judge for the same crime, I wonder if there is any legal options for "discrimination" or "unequal treatment."

This is the kind of thing that makes my skin crawl. When Justice Sotomayor made her "Wise Latina" comment ("I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."), that speaks towards Justice not being blind and objective, but being subjective.

We agree that the law isn't always applied evenly. That's why I'd love for Obama (or any other President facing the same or similar events) to say that we have laws and that they'll be applied equally. I don't believe Obama (or any other President) will do that, though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Unfortunately DS, we keep finding more and more examples of people who are very rich, not being held to the same laws and rules as everyone else in the nation. Would O.J. Simpson's case been acquitted if he didn't have a lot of money? How about that rich kid, whose defense was 'his parents didn't teach him right from wrong"? How about that Republican President that lied to Congress and the nation, got us into a shooting war in Iraq, 4,000+ dead US Soldiers, 32,500+ wounded US Soldiers, and dropped $4trillion+ in borrowed money to pay for it all?
For every one 'rich' person that see's actually hard time and hefty dollar penalties, there are perhaps a hundred more than its just a slap on the wrists. Consider that news sort of some guy who parked his super luxury car in front of a fire hydrant. The same one that was needed by the fire fighters to put out a fire in someone's house? Its a $100 fine for parking in front of a fire hydrant. But if someone just bought a car worth 100 Grand easily, do you think $100 fine is much of a deterrent?
The point here, is that while in our nation, everyone is to be treated equally under the law; are they all REALLY equal? The answer of course is 'no'. So why don't 'we the people' set the laws to take into consideration someone's resources above the current 'line' of penalties?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Unfortunately DS, we keep finding more and more examples of people who are very rich, not being held to the same laws and rules as everyone else in the nation. Would O.J. Simpson's case been acquitted if he didn't have a lot of money? How about that rich kid, whose defense was 'his parents didn't teach him right from wrong"? How about that Republican President that lied to Congress and the nation, got us into a shooting war in Iraq, 4,000+ dead US Soldiers, 32,500+ wounded US Soldiers, and dropped $4trillion+ in borrowed money to pay for it all?
For every one 'rich' person that see's actually hard time and hefty dollar penalties, there are perhaps a hundred more than its just a slap on the wrists. Consider that news sort of some guy who parked his super luxury car in front of a fire hydrant. The same one that was needed by the fire fighters to put out a fire in someone's house? Its a $100 fine for parking in front of a fire hydrant. But if someone just bought a car worth 100 Grand easily, do you think $100 fine is much of a deterrent?
The point here, is that while in our nation, everyone is to be treated equally under the law; are they all REALLY equal? The answer of course is 'no'. So why don't 'we the people' set the laws to take into consideration someone's resources above the current 'line' of penalties?

Because that's not equal treatment under the law, either.

Your idea is to fix unequal treatment of the law by making it unequal in a different way (presumably in the opposite direction). While that may make sense to those who are looking for "reparations," that still isn't commanding equal treatment under the law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Unfortunately DS, we keep finding more and more examples of people who are very rich, not being held to the same laws and rules as everyone else in the nation. Would O.J. Simpson's case been acquitted if he didn't have a lot of money? How about that rich kid, whose defense was 'his parents didn't teach him right from wrong"? How about that Republican President that lied to Congress and the nation, got us into a shooting war in Iraq, 4,000+ dead US Soldiers, 32,500+ wounded US Soldiers, and dropped $4trillion+ in borrowed money to pay for it all?
For every one 'rich' person that see's actually hard time and hefty dollar penalties, there are perhaps a hundred more than its just a slap on the wrists. Consider that news sort of some guy who parked his super luxury car in front of a fire hydrant. The same one that was needed by the fire fighters to put out a fire in someone's house? Its a $100 fine for parking in front of a fire hydrant. But if someone just bought a car worth 100 Grand easily, do you think $100 fine is much of a deterrent?
The point here, is that while in our nation, everyone is to be treated equally under the law; are they all REALLY equal? The answer of course is 'no'. So why don't 'we the people' set the laws to take into consideration someone's resources above the current 'line' of penalties?

Because that's not equal treatment under the law, either.
Your idea is to fix unequal treatment of the law by making it unequal in a different way (presumably in the opposite direction). While that may make sense to those who are looking for "reparations," that still isn't commanding equal treatment under the law.

The current system favors those with resources many times over those that do not. How many black Americans, left in the same situation as O.J. Simpson without his resources, would have gotten off? None of them. We have plenty of prisons in the USA that should scores of supporting evidence of that fact.
I'm saying that we have to take into consideration that a person with high resources should be penalized befitting those resources. That there exists a base line (i.e. what is commonly held right now), but it goes up for those with more resources. I gave the example of the guy parking his $100K car in front of a fire hydrant. If he can afford a $100K grand car, why should he be concern with a $100 fine? That those with immerse resources can side-step the law undermines that law as being 'equal to all persons'.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Unfortunately DS, we keep finding more and more examples of people who are very rich, not being held to the same laws and rules as everyone else in the nation. Would O.J. Simpson's case been acquitted if he didn't have a lot of money? How about that rich kid, whose defense was 'his parents didn't teach him right from wrong"? How about that Republican President that lied to Congress and the nation, got us into a shooting war in Iraq, 4,000+ dead US Soldiers, 32,500+ wounded US Soldiers, and dropped $4trillion+ in borrowed money to pay for it all?
For every one 'rich' person that see's actually hard time and hefty dollar penalties, there are perhaps a hundred more than its just a slap on the wrists. Consider that news sort of some guy who parked his super luxury car in front of a fire hydrant. The same one that was needed by the fire fighters to put out a fire in someone's house? Its a $100 fine for parking in front of a fire hydrant. But if someone just bought a car worth 100 Grand easily, do you think $100 fine is much of a deterrent?
The point here, is that while in our nation, everyone is to be treated equally under the law; are they all REALLY equal? The answer of course is 'no'. So why don't 'we the people' set the laws to take into consideration someone's resources above the current 'line' of penalties?

Because that's not equal treatment under the law, either.

Your idea is to fix unequal treatment of the law by making it unequal in a different way (presumably in the opposite direction). While that may make sense to those who are looking for "reparations," that still isn't commanding equal treatment under the law.

The current system favors those with resources many times over those that do not. How many black Americans, left in the same situation as O.J. Simpson without his resources, would have gotten off? None of them. We have plenty of prisons in the USA that should scores of supporting evidence of that fact.

I'm saying that we have to take into consideration that a person with high resources should be penalized befitting those resources. That there exists a base line (i.e. what is commonly held right now), but it goes up for those with more resources. I gave the example of the guy parking his $100K car in front of a fire hydrant. If he can afford a $100K grand car, why should he be concern with a $100 fine? That those with immerse resources can side-step the law undermines that law as being 'equal to all persons'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: enslaver

Obama doesn`t have a clue about what the real problems of the country are, what makes you think he`d care about a nobody like Bieber?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

And Obama is keeping his mouth shut.

quote:

The White House has two words for those who want President Barack Obama to deport Justin Bieber: No comment.

Nearly 275,000 people signed an Internet petition calling the Canadian-born teen idol reckless and asking Obama to revoke his green card. That's far more than required to merit an official response through the White House's "We the People" program.

The White House says it's sorry to disappoint, but it won't be commenting. It's citing a caveat that lets the White House decline to address certain petitions.
White House won't comment on Justin Bieber petition

He has screwed just about everything else up beyond recognition, the least he could do is deport Bieber.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Here's what I'd want President Obama to say: "We have an immigration policy in place that is used to determine who is deported and who isn't. This policy will be followed with regards to Justin Bieber, as it is to every other immigrant."

Bwahahhahaha.... I completely agree.

Of course that won't happen since we are a good capitalistic society and he has the money to buy justice. If some poor black kid had gotten caught with 10% of the stuff Bieber has he'd be in prison for 20 years minimum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Unfortunately DS, we keep finding more and more examples of people who are very rich, not being held to the same laws and rules as everyone else in the nation. Would O.J. Simpson's case been acquitted if he didn't have a lot of money? How about that rich kid, whose defense was 'his parents didn't teach him right from wrong"? How about that Republican President that lied to Congress and the nation, got us into a shooting war in Iraq, 4,000+ dead US Soldiers, 32,500+ wounded US Soldiers, and dropped $4trillion+ in borrowed money to pay for it all?
For every one 'rich' person that see's actually hard time and hefty dollar penalties, there are perhaps a hundred more than its just a slap on the wrists. Consider that news sort of some guy who parked his super luxury car in front of a fire hydrant. The same one that was needed by the fire fighters to put out a fire in someone's house? Its a $100 fine for parking in front of a fire hydrant. But if someone just bought a car worth 100 Grand easily, do you think $100 fine is much of a deterrent?
The point here, is that while in our nation, everyone is to be treated equally under the law; are they all REALLY equal? The answer of course is 'no'. So why don't 'we the people' set the laws to take into consideration someone's resources above the current 'line' of penalties?

Because that's not equal treatment under the law, either.

Your idea is to fix unequal treatment of the law by making it unequal in a different way (presumably in the opposite direction). While that may make sense to those who are looking for "reparations," that still isn't commanding equal treatment under the law.

The current system favors those with resources many times over those that do not. How many black Americans, left in the same situation as O.J. Simpson without his resources, would have gotten off? None of them. We have plenty of prisons in the USA that should scores of supporting evidence of that fact.

I'm saying that we have to take into consideration that a person with high resources should be penalized befitting those resources. That there exists a base line (i.e. what is commonly held right now), but it goes up for those with more resources. I gave the example of the guy parking his $100K car in front of a fire hydrant. If he can afford a $100K grand car, why should he be concern with a $100 fine? That those with immerse resources can side-step the law undermines that law as being 'equal to all persons'.

So they should be fined more because they have more money to spend? And that would make things equal in your eyes? Do you stretch that logic to include all things? Should we charge rich people more for everything they buy, since they have more money and can afford it? Or perhaps we could put a cap on how much money everyone has and any extra could be thrown into the pot to dole out to the ones who have less? Then life would be fair because everyone knows it's supposed to be, right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

You can spin it anyway you like but the bottom line is you want to punish people for having more money than you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

You can spin it anyway you like but the bottom line is you want to punish people for having more money than you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

You can spin it anyway you like but the bottom line is you want to punish people for having more money than you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

You can spin it anyway you like but the bottom line is you want to punish people for having more money than you.

Actually, joether makes a very valid point. The purpose of a fine is to both punish and act as a deterrent. Let's say a fine for whatever infraction is $500. For a person making $20 per hour it takes 25 hours of labor...more than three days of work...to pay that fine. But if the person that commits the infraction makes $300 per hour it only takes them an hour and forty minutes of work. Exactly how is that fair? For the rich person the punishment isn't nearly as severe as the hardship presented to the common worker, and as a result it doesn't present nearly as much of a deterrent to keep them from doing it again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
You can spin it anyway you like but the bottom line is you want to punish people for having more money than you.

Actually, joether makes a very valid point. The purpose of a fine is to both punish and act as a deterrent. Let's say a fine for whatever infraction is $500. For a person making $20 per hour it takes 25 hours of labor...more than three days of work...to pay that fine. But if the person that commits the infraction makes $300 per hour it only takes them an hour and forty minutes of work. Exactly how is that fair? For the rich person the punishment isn't nearly as severe as the hardship presented to the common worker, and as a result it doesn't present nearly as much of a deterrent to keep them from doing it again.

So, using the Mercedes-Benz example, what if the car was given to a poor person by a rich one? How do we value that? If a poor person is given a really nice car, should they give it away in order to avoid being considered "rich" and therefore subject to heavier fines and/or costs? Doesn't that sort of tell people that moving up the income ladder isn't worth doing?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

You can spin it anyway you like but the bottom line is you want to punish people for having more money than you.

Actually, joether makes a very valid point. The purpose of a fine is to both punish and act as a deterrent. Let's say a fine for whatever infraction is $500. For a person making $20 per hour it takes 25 hours of labor...more than three days of work...to pay that fine. But if the person that commits the infraction makes $300 per hour it only takes them an hour and forty minutes of work. Exactly how is that fair? For the rich person the punishment isn't nearly as severe as the hardship presented to the common worker, and as a result it doesn't present nearly as much of a deterrent to keep them from doing it again.

So, using the Mercedes-Benz example, what if the car was given to a poor person by a rich one? How do we value that? If a poor person is given a really nice car, should they give it away in order to avoid being considered "rich" and therefore subject to heavier fines and/or costs? Doesn't that sort of tell people that moving up the income ladder isn't worth doing?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

You can spin it anyway you like but the bottom line is you want to punish people for having more money than you.

Actually, joether makes a very valid point. The purpose of a fine is to both punish and act as a deterrent. Let's say a fine for whatever infraction is $500. For a person making $20 per hour it takes 25 hours of labor...more than three days of work...to pay that fine. But if the person that commits the infraction makes $300 per hour it only takes them an hour and forty minutes of work. Exactly how is that fair? For the rich person the punishment isn't nearly as severe as the hardship presented to the common worker, and as a result it doesn't present nearly as much of a deterrent to keep them from doing it again.

So, using the Mercedes-Benz example, what if the car was given to a poor person by a rich one? How do we value that? If a poor person is given a really nice car, should they give it away in order to avoid being considered "rich" and therefore subject to heavier fines and/or costs? Doesn't that sort of tell people that moving up the income ladder isn't worth doing?