Crack Dealer Released Early From Prison By Obama Murders Woman And Her 2 Young Kids

[leftwinger]

Then tell me, who created this "law?"

pssst.....they don't want to tell you. BJ Clinton? probably?

 

[williepete]

I'm sorry that I seem to rub you the wrong way. Do you have anything further to say on the topic, or are you done now that you've got that off your chest?

Yes, I do feel better now. Sorry to go off topic.



----------------------

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I never said there is ever an excuse for murder. I said it'd be easier for felons to reintegrate if their past didn't hinder them for the rest of their lives.

They wouldn't be a problem, if we executed more of them.

Actually, from what I understand, that's what they do in Singapore. They don't have any drug problems there. Not that I agree with such harsh sentencing, but deterrents do work.

You don't think there's a "drug problem" in Singapore?

Ever been there?

No, but I don't think you actually have to go there:

With all these efforts, Singapore has one of the lowest prevalence of drug abuse worldwide, even though it has not been entirely eliminated. Over two decades, the number of drug abusers arrested each year has declined by two-thirds, from over 6,000 in the early 1990s to about 2,000 last year. Fewer than two in 10 abusers released from prison or drug rehabilitation centres relapse within two years. We do not have traffickers pushing drugs openly in the streets, nor do we need to run needle exchange centres. Because of our strict laws, Singapore does not have to contend with major drug syndicates linked to organised crime, unlike some other countries.

Singapore's policy keeps drugs at bay | Michael Teo

Honestly, go live in Singapore... It is quite a restrictive countries in the world:

Lets just look at there gun laws:

Singapore has one of the toughest gun control laws in the world. According to the Arms Offences Act, unlawful possession or carrying of firearms is punishable with imprisonment and caning. Using or attempting to use arms when committing a scheduled offense is punishable with death. The death penalty may also apply to the offender’s accomplices present at the scene of the offense.

Any person proved to be in unlawful possession of more than two firearms will be presumed to be trafficking in arms until the contrary is proved. Trafficking in arms is punishable with either death or imprisonment for life and with caning.

Possessing any firearms or importing, exporting, manufacturing, repairing, or selling them, requires a license. Licensing officers have the authority to refuse to issue a license, or to suspend or cancel a license without giving any reason.


So owning two unlicenced guns is the death penalty...

The government decide everything... That is why I laugh at anyone using Singapore as an example... Singapore has one of the most intrusive governments in the world...

Here is the law on chewing gum:
Since 2004, only chewing gum of therapeutic value is allowed into Singapore under the "Regulation of Imports and Exports (Chewing Gum) Regulations." The exception is made for dental or nicotine gum.[1] Gum can be bought from a doctor, but must be prescribed.

Want to keep using them as an example to follow...

My only point about bringing up Singapore is that a strong enough deterrent works. That doesn't mean I think we should adopt all of their policies. But let's face facts. The United States has the highest percentage of her citizens locked up behind bars compared to any industrialized country in the world, and half of those offenders are associated with drug selling or usage.

 

[tinydancer]

Come on guys. You can't blame a President. Thats getting stupid.

 

[OKTexas]

Of course these people were sentenced under that law, right? A change in the law is not a get out of jail free card.

When the law in question specifically makes the changes retroactive, it sure can be.

In this case, the man in question had his sentence reduced both due to this law, and good behavior.

From your link:

"The Act has been described as improving the fairness of the federal criminal justice system, and prominent politicians and non-profit organizations have called for further reforms, such as making the law retroactive and completely eliminating of the disparity (i.e., enacting a 1:1 sentencing ratio)."

So it wasn't made retroactive, try again?

You should have kept reading. Not all of it was made retroactive, but some of it was.

U.S. Sentencing Commission Votes to Make Crack/Powder Cocaine Sentencing Reforms Retroactive | Drug Policy Alliance

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware a commission could write law. Oh right, they can't. So they voted to violate the law and your dear leaders DOJ let them get away with it.

The US Sentencing Commission was created by Congress in 1984 to establish federal sentencing guidelines. They are not part of the Executive Branch, and its constitutionality was already determined by SCOTUS in 1989.

The guidelines still have to comply with the law. They can't arbitrarily set sentences less or more than the law allows. That would include making a law retroactive if congress didn't.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

When the law in question specifically makes the changes retroactive, it sure can be.

In this case, the man in question had his sentence reduced both due to this law, and good behavior.

From your link:

"The Act has been described as improving the fairness of the federal criminal justice system, and prominent politicians and non-profit organizations have called for further reforms, such as making the law retroactive and completely eliminating of the disparity (i.e., enacting a 1:1 sentencing ratio)."

So it wasn't made retroactive, try again?

You should have kept reading. Not all of it was made retroactive, but some of it was.

U.S. Sentencing Commission Votes to Make Crack/Powder Cocaine Sentencing Reforms Retroactive | Drug Policy Alliance

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware a commission could write law. Oh right, they can't. So they voted to violate the law and your dear leaders DOJ let them get away with it.

The US Sentencing Commission was created by Congress in 1984 to establish federal sentencing guidelines. They are not part of the Executive Branch, and its constitutionality was already determined by SCOTUS in 1989.

The guidelines still have to comply with the law. They can't arbitrarily set sentences less or more than the law allows. That would include making a law retroactive if congress didn't.

The law as passed by Congress specifically allowed (in fact, forced) the US Sentencing Commission to review its minimums and re-write them within 90 days of its passage.

 

[OKTexas]

From your link:

"The Act has been described as improving the fairness of the federal criminal justice system, and prominent politicians and non-profit organizations have called for further reforms, such as making the law retroactive and completely eliminating of the disparity (i.e., enacting a 1:1 sentencing ratio)."

So it wasn't made retroactive, try again?

You should have kept reading. Not all of it was made retroactive, but some of it was.

U.S. Sentencing Commission Votes to Make Crack/Powder Cocaine Sentencing Reforms Retroactive | Drug Policy Alliance

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware a commission could write law. Oh right, they can't. So they voted to violate the law and your dear leaders DOJ let them get away with it.

The US Sentencing Commission was created by Congress in 1984 to establish federal sentencing guidelines. They are not part of the Executive Branch, and its constitutionality was already determined by SCOTUS in 1989.

The guidelines still have to comply with the law. They can't arbitrarily set sentences less or more than the law allows. That would include making a law retroactive if congress didn't.

The law as passed by Congress specifically allowed (in fact, forced) the US Sentencing Commission to review its minimums and re-write them within 90 days of its passage.

Right, to comply with any new laws, not to rewrite the laws.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Your adorable attempt at a "Willie Horton" aside, why don't you lay out exactly what you disagree with about Obama's changes in sentencing guidlines?

These three dead people.

So you've got nothing. Color me unsurprised.

OP, you got anything?

I am sure their relatives would appreciate them being called nothing.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Your adorable attempt at a "Willie Horton" aside, why don't you lay out exactly what you disagree with about Obama's changes in sentencing guidlines?

These three dead people.

So you've got nothing. Color me unsurprised.

OP, you got anything?

I am sure their relatives would appreciate them being called nothing.

And I'm sure that you think histrionic appeals to emotion make a legitimate argument.

Can you articulate your own opinions on this, or should I give you a few minutes to catch up?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Your adorable attempt at a "Willie Horton" aside, why don't you lay out exactly what you disagree with about Obama's changes in sentencing guidlines?

These three dead people.

So you've got nothing. Color me unsurprised.

OP, you got anything?

I am sure their relatives would appreciate them being called nothing.

And I'm sure that you think histrionic appeals to emotion make a legitimate argument.

Can you articulate your own opinions on this, or should I give you a few minutes to catch up?

I think I might have respected that response to the first post.

Calling them nothing seems a bit insensitive.

 

[Never3ndr]

Your adorable attempt at a "Willie Horton" aside, why don't you lay out exactly what you disagree with about Obama's changes in sentencing guidlines?

These three dead people.

So you've got nothing. Color me unsurprised.

OP, you got anything?

I am sure their relatives would appreciate them being called nothing.

And I'm sure that you think histrionic appeals to emotion make a legitimate argument.

Can you articulate your own opinions on this, or should I give you a few minutes to catch up?

I think I might have respected that response to the first post.

Calling them nothing seems a bit insensitive.

Well, let's be honest, it is nothing.

It isn't that they (the murdered) don't matter. It isn't that this isn't a tragic story.

It is that pointing to one, worst case, issue and linking it to the President rather than the myriad of other factors you could link it to (upbringing, drug war, educational level, prison institutionalization, etc.) you simply link it to the thing you don't like. In other words, the relation level to the President is...nothing (or negligible at best).

Let's all recognize that nobody is saying that these murders aren't horrible...tragic. We all realize that the victims and their families deserve the utmost condolences. However, any reasonable person also realizes that their murder can be directly linked to...their murderer...not the leader of the nation that happens to be in office when this guy commits said murder.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

These three dead people.

So you've got nothing. Color me unsurprised.

OP, you got anything?

I am sure their relatives would appreciate them being called nothing.

And I'm sure that you think histrionic appeals to emotion make a legitimate argument.

Can you articulate your own opinions on this, or should I give you a few minutes to catch up?

I think I might have respected that response to the first post.

Calling them nothing seems a bit insensitive.

Well, let's be honest, it is nothing.

It isn't that they (the murdered) don't matter. It isn't that this isn't a tragic story.

It is that pointing to one, worst case, issue and linking it to the President rather than the myriad of other factors you could link it to (upbringing, drug war, educational level, prison institutionalization, etc.) you simply link it to the thing you don't like. In other words, the relation level to the President is...nothing.

Let's all recognize that nobody is saying that these murders aren't horrible...tragic. We all realize that the victims and their families deserve the utmost condolences. However, any reasonable person also realizes that their murder can be directly linked to...their murderer...not the leader of the nation that happens to be in office when this guy commits said murder.

I can agree with everything you said except that it is nothing.

Sorry. But it is tragic.

Linked to Obama....why ? I am sure he didn't wake up one morning and say, I'm going to get three people killed.

Now, when it comes to his lousy immigration enforcement...I am not so sure.

 

[Never3ndr]

So you've got nothing. Color me unsurprised.

OP, you got anything?

I am sure their relatives would appreciate them being called nothing.

And I'm sure that you think histrionic appeals to emotion make a legitimate argument.

Can you articulate your own opinions on this, or should I give you a few minutes to catch up?

I think I might have respected that response to the first post.

Calling them nothing seems a bit insensitive.

Well, let's be honest, it is nothing.

It isn't that they (the murdered) don't matter. It isn't that this isn't a tragic story.

It is that pointing to one, worst case, issue and linking it to the President rather than the myriad of other factors you could link it to (upbringing, drug war, educational level, prison institutionalization, etc.) you simply link it to the thing you don't like. In other words, the relation level to the President is...nothing.

Let's all recognize that nobody is saying that these murders aren't horrible...tragic. We all realize that the victims and their families deserve the utmost condolences. However, any reasonable person also realizes that their murder can be directly linked to...their murderer...not the leader of the nation that happens to be in office when this guy commits said murder.

I can agree with everything you said except that it is nothing.

Sorry. But it is tragic.

Linked to Obama....why ? I am sure he didn't wake up one morning and say, I'm going to get three people killed.

Now, when it comes to his lousy immigration enforcement...I am not so sure.

Did you read my post? If not, please read it. If so, please re-read it. You pretty much said the same thing I said.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Your adorable attempt at a "Willie Horton" aside, why don't you lay out exactly what you disagree with about Obama's changes in sentencing guidlines?

These three dead people.

So you've got nothing. Color me unsurprised.

OP, you got anything?

I am sure their relatives would appreciate them being called nothing.

And I'm sure that you think histrionic appeals to emotion make a legitimate argument.

Can you articulate your own opinions on this, or should I give you a few minutes to catch up?

I think I might have respected that response to the first post.

Calling them nothing seems a bit insensitive.

I didn't call them nothing, I called Wild Bill's argument nothing.


He doesn't own them. I feel for them, as much as I feel for everyone killed, every day - but I'm not discussing feelings here.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I am sure their relatives would appreciate them being called nothing.

And I'm sure that you think histrionic appeals to emotion make a legitimate argument.

Can you articulate your own opinions on this, or should I give you a few minutes to catch up?

I think I might have respected that response to the first post.

Calling them nothing seems a bit insensitive.

Well, let's be honest, it is nothing.

It isn't that they (the murdered) don't matter. It isn't that this isn't a tragic story.

It is that pointing to one, worst case, issue and linking it to the President rather than the myriad of other factors you could link it to (upbringing, drug war, educational level, prison institutionalization, etc.) you simply link it to the thing you don't like. In other words, the relation level to the President is...nothing.

Let's all recognize that nobody is saying that these murders aren't horrible...tragic. We all realize that the victims and their families deserve the utmost condolences. However, any reasonable person also realizes that their murder can be directly linked to...their murderer...not the leader of the nation that happens to be in office when this guy commits said murder.

I can agree with everything you said except that it is nothing.

Sorry. But it is tragic.

Linked to Obama....why ? I am sure he didn't wake up one morning and say, I'm going to get three people killed.

Now, when it comes to his lousy immigration enforcement...I am not so sure.

Did you read my post? If not, please read it. If so, please re-read it. You pretty much said the same thing I said.

I did read your post.....

I said I agreed with everything....except your first sentence.

 

[leftwinger]

The truth shall set you free................or the new law. If this killer was still locked up, 3 would not be murdered. That is the point originally before all the mush started floating?

 

[Never3ndr]

And I'm sure that you think histrionic appeals to emotion make a legitimate argument.

Can you articulate your own opinions on this, or should I give you a few minutes to catch up?

I think I might have respected that response to the first post.

Calling them nothing seems a bit insensitive.

Well, let's be honest, it is nothing.

It isn't that they (the murdered) don't matter. It isn't that this isn't a tragic story.

It is that pointing to one, worst case, issue and linking it to the President rather than the myriad of other factors you could link it to (upbringing, drug war, educational level, prison institutionalization, etc.) you simply link it to the thing you don't like. In other words, the relation level to the President is...nothing.

Let's all recognize that nobody is saying that these murders aren't horrible...tragic. We all realize that the victims and their families deserve the utmost condolences. However, any reasonable person also realizes that their murder can be directly linked to...their murderer...not the leader of the nation that happens to be in office when this guy commits said murder.

I can agree with everything you said except that it is nothing.

Sorry. But it is tragic.

Linked to Obama....why ? I am sure he didn't wake up one morning and say, I'm going to get three people killed.

Now, when it comes to his lousy immigration enforcement...I am not so sure.

Did you read my post? If not, please read it. If so, please re-read it. You pretty much said the same thing I said.

I did read your post.....

I said I agreed with everything....except your first sentence.

The rest of my post is literally all an explanation of the first sentence. Let me perhaps re-quote the direct, relating paragraph:

"It is that pointing to one, worst case, issue and linking it to the President rather than the myriad of other factors you could link it to (upbringing, drug war, educational level, prison institutionalization, etc.) you simply link it to the thing you don't like. In other words, the relation level to the President is...nothing."

In other words, saying that "it" is nothing doesn't have to be relating to the families. In this case, "it" relates to the relation level of the event to the President. Which, to re-iterate, is nothing. I literally go out of my way to state that nobody (or at least any reasonable person) is saying that the murder of the family is, in itself, nothing.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

These three dead people.

So you've got nothing. Color me unsurprised.

OP, you got anything?

I am sure their relatives would appreciate them being called nothing.

And I'm sure that you think histrionic appeals to emotion make a legitimate argument.

Can you articulate your own opinions on this, or should I give you a few minutes to catch up?

I think I might have respected that response to the first post.

Calling them nothing seems a bit insensitive.

Well, let's be honest, it is nothing.

It isn't that they (the murdered) don't matter. It isn't that this isn't a tragic story.

It is that pointing to one, worst case, issue and linking it to the President rather than the myriad of other factors you could link it to (upbringing, drug war, educational level, prison institutionalization, etc.) you simply link it to the thing you don't like. In other words, the relation level to the President is...nothing (or negligible at best).

Let's all recognize that nobody is saying that these murders aren't horrible...tragic. We all realize that the victims and their families deserve the utmost condolences. However, any reasonable person also realizes that their murder can be directly linked to...their murderer...not the leader of the nation that happens to be in office when this guy commits said murder.

Then let's start right at the beginning: who let this animal out of prison in the first place?

Because whoever did (and I'm sure you'll avoid names) has to share the most responsibility for this crime outside of the criminal himself.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So you've got nothing. Color me unsurprised.

OP, you got anything?

I am sure their relatives would appreciate them being called nothing.

And I'm sure that you think histrionic appeals to emotion make a legitimate argument.

Can you articulate your own opinions on this, or should I give you a few minutes to catch up?

I think I might have respected that response to the first post.

Calling them nothing seems a bit insensitive.

Well, let's be honest, it is nothing.

It isn't that they (the murdered) don't matter. It isn't that this isn't a tragic story.

It is that pointing to one, worst case, issue and linking it to the President rather than the myriad of other factors you could link it to (upbringing, drug war, educational level, prison institutionalization, etc.) you simply link it to the thing you don't like. In other words, the relation level to the President is...nothing (or negligible at best).

Let's all recognize that nobody is saying that these murders aren't horrible...tragic. We all realize that the victims and their families deserve the utmost condolences. However, any reasonable person also realizes that their murder can be directly linked to...their murderer...not the leader of the nation that happens to be in office when this guy commits said murder.

Then let's start right at the beginning: who let this animal out of prison in the first place?

Because whoever did (and I'm sure you'll avoid names) has to share the most responsibility for this crime outside of the criminal himself.

His early release, are you blaming that on his good behavior or the fact that whitey adjusted his sentence to be equal to that of a whitey?

Read the OP, he would have been out by Christmas regardless.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I am sure their relatives would appreciate them being called nothing.

And I'm sure that you think histrionic appeals to emotion make a legitimate argument.

Can you articulate your own opinions on this, or should I give you a few minutes to catch up?

I think I might have respected that response to the first post.

Calling them nothing seems a bit insensitive.

Well, let's be honest, it is nothing.

It isn't that they (the murdered) don't matter. It isn't that this isn't a tragic story.

It is that pointing to one, worst case, issue and linking it to the President rather than the myriad of other factors you could link it to (upbringing, drug war, educational level, prison institutionalization, etc.) you simply link it to the thing you don't like. In other words, the relation level to the President is...nothing (or negligible at best).

Let's all recognize that nobody is saying that these murders aren't horrible...tragic. We all realize that the victims and their families deserve the utmost condolences. However, any reasonable person also realizes that their murder can be directly linked to...their murderer...not the leader of the nation that happens to be in office when this guy commits said murder.

Then let's start right at the beginning: who let this animal out of prison in the first place?

Because whoever did (and I'm sure you'll avoid names) has to share the most responsibility for this crime outside of the criminal himself.

His early release, are you blaming that on his good behavior or the fact that whitey adjusted his sentence to be equal to that of a whitey?

Read the OP, he would have been out by Christmas regardless.

Really? Because I read it and it said he was released four years early. Which Christmas are you talking about???

And don't bring up that old "whitey" rag again. It holds no water.