Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sure it has. Almost every state has plans to "rehabilitate" prisoners to some degree. prison rehabilitation plans - Google SearchYou can't say that what I propose is a failure, Ray. What I propose has never been tried.
blah, blah, blah. Always wanting to take credit for someone's ideas and already implemented programs.You want to measure some half assed ideas against a complete program that has never been tried. There is no prison system , state or federal, that has the rehabilitation program I'm suggesting.
Ray, admit it. You like to argue, but like the Democrats, your ideology has a history of abject failure. You are afraid to explore new ideas and so what works and what don't is irrelevant. It's now about who has the most votes to stay in power. You don't want any solutions. You simply want your side to have power. That is made evident by your efforts to misrepresent me... much like the board troll on this thread does. It's dishonest, son.
There are things society can do. When parents are enabling their kids and the taxpayers are left holding the bag, you have an addressable situation. Since we're both agreed, when parents are aiding in this kind of destructive behavior, we should put the proposal out there to make it a crime wherein we label it abuse of some sort or another.
At the other end of the spectrum, we can do something when people get incarcerated by taking that opportunity to give those dependent upon the system the ability to become self sufficient.
And how do you propose we do that, by forcing employers to hire ex-cons?
I rented to ex-cons twice since I became a landlord almost 25 years ago. One almost burned down one of my houses to the ground. Over 80K in damages. My insurance company dropped my policies on all my rental units and I couldn't get insurance for 3 years. I had to use a state program during that time.
Another one was a remodeler who was locked up because of drugs. A very talented man who wanted to do some remodeling in his rental unit. He ripped down a wall, tore the plumbing out of the bathroom, went back on drugs and left it that way until I evicted him because of non-payment of rent. That was a pricy problem to fix.
So now because of experience, I won't rent to a convicted felon. They are nothing but problems I don't need in my life. I'm sure employers who gave jobs to convicted felons had the same results.
If I'm not mistaken, I have reiterated my position more than twice. Do you have some reason that your ideology cannot stand on its own merits?
I HAVE NOT AND DO NOT NOR HAVE I EVER ADVOCATED FORCING EMPLOYERS TO DO A DAMN THING
I currently have an idea floating around at the state level in Georgia to do away with early release of any prisoner in Georgia unless they undergo a rehabilitation program that includes, but is not limited to getting a GED, transferable job skills, and taking seminars in real life subject matter (like how to apply for a job, balance their checkbook, get a house / apartment, build up their credit rating, etc.)
Then I would advocate that the state give tax incentives for employers to give those people a second chance. The employer would, of course, have the advantage of hiring a bonded worker and the government would make good for any damages an employer might incur if that employee did any of what you are talking about. BUT, AT NO TIME WOULD ANY EMPLOYER BE REQUIRED TO HIRE SOMEONE WITH A CRIMINAL BACKGROUND.
That would be a failure too. We did that here in Ohio. In fact one of the places I deliver too participated in the program. They were getting money from the state to hire felons.
It didn't take long before fights broke out between the felon workers and some being carted away in an ambulance. So the owner hired private security to keep them tame. That didn't work either as they attacked the security guard, so the security company refused to do business with the company unless they could provide an ample amount of officers to discourage violence and attacks on them. It ended up costing so much money for all the security that the owner got out of the program.
You can't say that what I propose is a failure, Ray. What I propose has never been tried.
You want to measure some half assed ideas against a complete program that has never been tried. There is no prison system , state or federal, that has the rehabilitation program I'm suggesting.
Ray, admit it. You like to argue, but like the Democrats, your ideology has a history of abject failure. You are afraid to explore new ideas and so what works and what don't is irrelevant. It's now about who has the most votes to stay in power. You don't want any solutions. You simply want your side to have power. That is made evident by your efforts to misrepresent me... much like the board troll on this thread does. It's dishonest, son.
Seems you have a problem with everybody misrepresenting you, so I"m in good company.
Prison is not a vocational school, prison is punishment.
View attachment 164037
Even McDonald's acknowledges that their business was intended for children.
Holding businesses that are created with the employment of kids & college students responsible for the poor choices people make in life is wrong. If you're in your mid to late 20's or higher & working for minimum wage you have no one to blame but yourself. You're poor choices should not result in a 10.00 Big Mac or 4 dollar fry.
View attachment 164037
Even McDonald's acknowledges that their business was intended for children.
Holding businesses that are created with the employment of kids & college students responsible for the poor choices people make in life is wrong. If you're in your mid to late 20's or higher & working for minimum wage you have no one to blame but yourself. You're poor choices should not result in a 10.00 Big Mac or 4 dollar fry.
Kids have been shut out of these jobs by illegal aliens.
View attachment 164037
Even McDonald's acknowledges that their business was intended for children.
Holding businesses that are created with the employment of kids & college students responsible for the poor choices people make in life is wrong. If you're in your mid to late 20's or higher & working for minimum wage you have no one to blame but yourself. You're poor choices should not result in a 10.00 Big Mac or 4 dollar fry.
Have you no idea that 50% of the employees are single parent women.
Still believing the myth it's an entry level job?
I presume mr high and mighty is sucking off his socialist VA SS Medicare benefits?
$15 in Seattle led to 10c in hamburger prices.
Do you just spew knees news and never research?
And how do you propose we do that, by forcing employers to hire ex-cons?
I rented to ex-cons twice since I became a landlord almost 25 years ago. One almost burned down one of my houses to the ground. Over 80K in damages. My insurance company dropped my policies on all my rental units and I couldn't get insurance for 3 years. I had to use a state program during that time.
Another one was a remodeler who was locked up because of drugs. A very talented man who wanted to do some remodeling in his rental unit. He ripped down a wall, tore the plumbing out of the bathroom, went back on drugs and left it that way until I evicted him because of non-payment of rent. That was a pricy problem to fix.
So now because of experience, I won't rent to a convicted felon. They are nothing but problems I don't need in my life. I'm sure employers who gave jobs to convicted felons had the same results.
If I'm not mistaken, I have reiterated my position more than twice. Do you have some reason that your ideology cannot stand on its own merits?
I HAVE NOT AND DO NOT NOR HAVE I EVER ADVOCATED FORCING EMPLOYERS TO DO A DAMN THING
I currently have an idea floating around at the state level in Georgia to do away with early release of any prisoner in Georgia unless they undergo a rehabilitation program that includes, but is not limited to getting a GED, transferable job skills, and taking seminars in real life subject matter (like how to apply for a job, balance their checkbook, get a house / apartment, build up their credit rating, etc.)
Then I would advocate that the state give tax incentives for employers to give those people a second chance. The employer would, of course, have the advantage of hiring a bonded worker and the government would make good for any damages an employer might incur if that employee did any of what you are talking about. BUT, AT NO TIME WOULD ANY EMPLOYER BE REQUIRED TO HIRE SOMEONE WITH A CRIMINAL BACKGROUND.
That would be a failure too. We did that here in Ohio. In fact one of the places I deliver too participated in the program. They were getting money from the state to hire felons.
It didn't take long before fights broke out between the felon workers and some being carted away in an ambulance. So the owner hired private security to keep them tame. That didn't work either as they attacked the security guard, so the security company refused to do business with the company unless they could provide an ample amount of officers to discourage violence and attacks on them. It ended up costing so much money for all the security that the owner got out of the program.
You can't say that what I propose is a failure, Ray. What I propose has never been tried.
You want to measure some half assed ideas against a complete program that has never been tried. There is no prison system , state or federal, that has the rehabilitation program I'm suggesting.
Ray, admit it. You like to argue, but like the Democrats, your ideology has a history of abject failure. You are afraid to explore new ideas and so what works and what don't is irrelevant. It's now about who has the most votes to stay in power. You don't want any solutions. You simply want your side to have power. That is made evident by your efforts to misrepresent me... much like the board troll on this thread does. It's dishonest, son.
Seems you have a problem with everybody misrepresenting you, so I"m in good company.
Prison is not a vocational school, prison is punishment.
And rehabilitation doesn’t happen, it works for a few but the vast majority of the prison population isn’t wanting to rehab, they want to make sure they aren’t caught the next time.
. They don't need to be hiring or consider hiring illegals as in your hire anyone they want to idea. Just Americans to be hired, and if the nation needs additional help brought in for undesirable jobs such as seasonable work and such, then make it legal to come here temporarily again, and then leave within that same year. No one over stays a temp visa, no one.If Uncensored's posts cannot withstand scrutiny and honest questions, the ridiculousness is on him, not me.
So, we have laws against foreigners coming in here to take jobs when it is NOT required - NOR SHOULD IT BE NECESSARY for one to become a citizen in order to engage in the free market.
So then I assume you object to patents just as stringently as you object to borders and national sovereignty? After all, why should Chinese counterfeiters be blocked from the "free" market by something as simple as a patent?
Reference back to my prior posts, which you lacked the intellect to grasp.
Governments are formed among free men to secure natural rights. Among the most important right is that of property. Obviously you don't believe in private property. Intellectual property is protected by patents, national property is protected by borders.
You advocate that borders be ignored, that all may trespass on the property of others at will.
If you were to sit down with the average anti-immigrant before they were exposed to this thread and ask them what purpose the immigration laws serve, a primary reason would be to protect American jobs.
Borders protect the property rights of the legitimate inhabitants of a nation.
That you seek one world government is irrelevant to the need of a sovereign nation to secure the property rights of the citizens of that nation.
So, on the one hand we will engage the federal government to keep foreigners out on the pretext of protecting the American worker only, on the other hand, to make that same worker subservient to a much more powerful mega - corporation wherein the corporation has all the power and can keep the masses working for poverty wages. And some here find it unethical that I'm suggesting the corporations earn their tax breaks.
If your concern is the transfer of American wealth to Mexico, why not advocate for direct payments rather than this convoluted scheme to displace American workers with third world peasants who accept a vastly lower standard of living?
Unless of course your goal is to retard the standard of living for American workers?
The left often decries the collapse of unions and blames Republicans. But of course it was open borders that destroyed the unions, it was hordes of illegal aliens who accept a dramatically lower standard of living that broke the back of organized labor and began to push down the standard of living for Americans.
This is NOT about whether welfare is good or bad. The reality of our laws is that welfare IS. It exists. And, when employers don't pay employees a realistic wage, the government makes up the difference in welfare. Constitutionally, nobody has a specific right to welfare; however, when employers pay crap wages, welfare programs kick in and help those who don't make enough. The right denies WHO is on welfare; partly because they don't understand it; the left sees the haves as the enemies and somewhere between the extremes lies a solution that will incentivize employers to pay employees more money without being penalized. And you are NOT going to get most welfare outlawed.... Not even under Trump:
7 Lies About Welfare That Many People Believe Are Fact
There is right and wrong. Your desire to destroy the property rights of Americans, to force a significant decline in the standard of living for the once middle, but now under-class is a prime example of "wrong."
Now we're going to make this a pissing contest about what I said and did not say???
Now you're going to LIE about what I advocated and turn this into an immigration thread? You mean you are so insecure at this juncture that you want to misrepresent me to the point that you think that load of horseshit deserves a serious response?
Oh Hell yeah, you're the only defender of Liberty on this board. You are Patrick Henry, Paul Revere, and Nathan Hale bundled into one package.
For those of you who have actually READ this thread, I posited the fact that the right wants to put a wall around the United States under the pretext of government saving jobs from so - called "illegal aliens." It does NOT have me advocating one way or another on the issue. I'm pointing out that this is their pretext. Uncensored is creating multiple straw man arguments.
Truly, if someone were libertarian in their thought process, they would not object to an employer giving a job to whomever they think can work the job and do what the employer wants to get done at the price the employer can or be willing to pay. Uncensored pretends he's your knight on shining armor, but he is too ignorant to realize that a job belongs to the employer that creates it. So much for him being a champion of private property rights. A job belongs to an employer for the same reason that a song belongs to the songwriter that creates it.
I'm not saying any of you should like that or agree with it, but once you have gotten into the realm of telling an employer who they can and cannot hire, you've run out of legitimate reasons that you can't tell the employer how much they have to pay their employees.
I'm not advocating either position and Uncensored's lack of reading skills doth testify against him. I'm saying that if you give the employer the leeway, the employer gets to choose whether to retain the Right to hire whomever they want OR get substantial breaks to hire Americans and pay them a realistic wage. I think that such a system would reveal in a few years which position is really the most profitable.
. Not good to waist time in prison if going to be let back out on the street. I would rather a good candidate for rehabilitation get that education in order to cope upon release, and yes with a job skill to boot if possible. Ray, do you realize that to a bum in prison, it is punishment for him or her to get education then forced upon them, and to make them work on a job skill to boot while on the inside.. Ohhh the horror's it must be for a buck wild bum to then be forced to get educated, and then to learn a job skill instead of running around selling drugs and impregnating your daughters. Wake up Ray.There are things society can do. When parents are enabling their kids and the taxpayers are left holding the bag, you have an addressable situation. Since we're both agreed, when parents are aiding in this kind of destructive behavior, we should put the proposal out there to make it a crime wherein we label it abuse of some sort or another.
At the other end of the spectrum, we can do something when people get incarcerated by taking that opportunity to give those dependent upon the system the ability to become self sufficient.
And how do you propose we do that, by forcing employers to hire ex-cons?
I rented to ex-cons twice since I became a landlord almost 25 years ago. One almost burned down one of my houses to the ground. Over 80K in damages. My insurance company dropped my policies on all my rental units and I couldn't get insurance for 3 years. I had to use a state program during that time.
Another one was a remodeler who was locked up because of drugs. A very talented man who wanted to do some remodeling in his rental unit. He ripped down a wall, tore the plumbing out of the bathroom, went back on drugs and left it that way until I evicted him because of non-payment of rent. That was a pricy problem to fix.
So now because of experience, I won't rent to a convicted felon. They are nothing but problems I don't need in my life. I'm sure employers who gave jobs to convicted felons had the same results.
If I'm not mistaken, I have reiterated my position more than twice. Do you have some reason that your ideology cannot stand on its own merits?
I HAVE NOT AND DO NOT NOR HAVE I EVER ADVOCATED FORCING EMPLOYERS TO DO A DAMN THING
I currently have an idea floating around at the state level in Georgia to do away with early release of any prisoner in Georgia unless they undergo a rehabilitation program that includes, but is not limited to getting a GED, transferable job skills, and taking seminars in real life subject matter (like how to apply for a job, balance their checkbook, get a house / apartment, build up their credit rating, etc.)
Then I would advocate that the state give tax incentives for employers to give those people a second chance. The employer would, of course, have the advantage of hiring a bonded worker and the government would make good for any damages an employer might incur if that employee did any of what you are talking about. BUT, AT NO TIME WOULD ANY EMPLOYER BE REQUIRED TO HIRE SOMEONE WITH A CRIMINAL BACKGROUND.
That would be a failure too. We did that here in Ohio. In fact one of the places I deliver too participated in the program. They were getting money from the state to hire felons.
It didn't take long before fights broke out between the felon workers and some being carted away in an ambulance. So the owner hired private security to keep them tame. That didn't work either as they attacked the security guard, so the security company refused to do business with the company unless they could provide an ample amount of officers to discourage violence and attacks on them. It ended up costing so much money for all the security that the owner got out of the program.
You can't say that what I propose is a failure, Ray. What I propose has never been tried.
You want to measure some half assed ideas against a complete program that has never been tried. There is no prison system , state or federal, that has the rehabilitation program I'm suggesting.
Ray, admit it. You like to argue, but like the Democrats, your ideology has a history of abject failure. You are afraid to explore new ideas and so what works and what don't is irrelevant. It's now about who has the most votes to stay in power. You don't want any solutions. You simply want your side to have power. That is made evident by your efforts to misrepresent me... much like the board troll on this thread does. It's dishonest, son.
Seems you have a problem with everybody misrepresenting you, so I"m in good company.
Prison is not a vocational school, prison is punishment.
. Not good to waist time in prison if going to be let back out on the street. I would rather a good candidate for rehabilitation get that education in order to cope upon release, and yes with a job skill to boot if possible. Ray, do you realize that to a bum in prison, it is punishment for him or her to get education then forced upon them, and to make them work on a job skill to boot while on the inside.. Ohhh the horror's it must be for a buck wild bum to then be forced to get educated, and then to learn a job skill instead of running around selling drugs and impregnating your daughters. Wake up Ray.And how do you propose we do that, by forcing employers to hire ex-cons?
I rented to ex-cons twice since I became a landlord almost 25 years ago. One almost burned down one of my houses to the ground. Over 80K in damages. My insurance company dropped my policies on all my rental units and I couldn't get insurance for 3 years. I had to use a state program during that time.
Another one was a remodeler who was locked up because of drugs. A very talented man who wanted to do some remodeling in his rental unit. He ripped down a wall, tore the plumbing out of the bathroom, went back on drugs and left it that way until I evicted him because of non-payment of rent. That was a pricy problem to fix.
So now because of experience, I won't rent to a convicted felon. They are nothing but problems I don't need in my life. I'm sure employers who gave jobs to convicted felons had the same results.
If I'm not mistaken, I have reiterated my position more than twice. Do you have some reason that your ideology cannot stand on its own merits?
I HAVE NOT AND DO NOT NOR HAVE I EVER ADVOCATED FORCING EMPLOYERS TO DO A DAMN THING
I currently have an idea floating around at the state level in Georgia to do away with early release of any prisoner in Georgia unless they undergo a rehabilitation program that includes, but is not limited to getting a GED, transferable job skills, and taking seminars in real life subject matter (like how to apply for a job, balance their checkbook, get a house / apartment, build up their credit rating, etc.)
Then I would advocate that the state give tax incentives for employers to give those people a second chance. The employer would, of course, have the advantage of hiring a bonded worker and the government would make good for any damages an employer might incur if that employee did any of what you are talking about. BUT, AT NO TIME WOULD ANY EMPLOYER BE REQUIRED TO HIRE SOMEONE WITH A CRIMINAL BACKGROUND.
That would be a failure too. We did that here in Ohio. In fact one of the places I deliver too participated in the program. They were getting money from the state to hire felons.
It didn't take long before fights broke out between the felon workers and some being carted away in an ambulance. So the owner hired private security to keep them tame. That didn't work either as they attacked the security guard, so the security company refused to do business with the company unless they could provide an ample amount of officers to discourage violence and attacks on them. It ended up costing so much money for all the security that the owner got out of the program.
You can't say that what I propose is a failure, Ray. What I propose has never been tried.
You want to measure some half assed ideas against a complete program that has never been tried. There is no prison system , state or federal, that has the rehabilitation program I'm suggesting.
Ray, admit it. You like to argue, but like the Democrats, your ideology has a history of abject failure. You are afraid to explore new ideas and so what works and what don't is irrelevant. It's now about who has the most votes to stay in power. You don't want any solutions. You simply want your side to have power. That is made evident by your efforts to misrepresent me... much like the board troll on this thread does. It's dishonest, son.
Seems you have a problem with everybody misrepresenting you, so I"m in good company.
Prison is not a vocational school, prison is punishment.
There are things society can do. When parents are enabling their kids and the taxpayers are left holding the bag, you have an addressable situation. Since we're both agreed, when parents are aiding in this kind of destructive behavior, we should put the proposal out there to make it a crime wherein we label it abuse of some sort or another.
At the other end of the spectrum, we can do something when people get incarcerated by taking that opportunity to give those dependent upon the system the ability to become self sufficient.
And how do you propose we do that, by forcing employers to hire ex-cons?
I rented to ex-cons twice since I became a landlord almost 25 years ago. One almost burned down one of my houses to the ground. Over 80K in damages. My insurance company dropped my policies on all my rental units and I couldn't get insurance for 3 years. I had to use a state program during that time.
Another one was a remodeler who was locked up because of drugs. A very talented man who wanted to do some remodeling in his rental unit. He ripped down a wall, tore the plumbing out of the bathroom, went back on drugs and left it that way until I evicted him because of non-payment of rent. That was a pricy problem to fix.
So now because of experience, I won't rent to a convicted felon. They are nothing but problems I don't need in my life. I'm sure employers who gave jobs to convicted felons had the same results.
If I'm not mistaken, I have reiterated my position more than twice. Do you have some reason that your ideology cannot stand on its own merits?
I HAVE NOT AND DO NOT NOR HAVE I EVER ADVOCATED FORCING EMPLOYERS TO DO A DAMN THING
I currently have an idea floating around at the state level in Georgia to do away with early release of any prisoner in Georgia unless they undergo a rehabilitation program that includes, but is not limited to getting a GED, transferable job skills, and taking seminars in real life subject matter (like how to apply for a job, balance their checkbook, get a house / apartment, build up their credit rating, etc.)
Then I would advocate that the state give tax incentives for employers to give those people a second chance. The employer would, of course, have the advantage of hiring a bonded worker and the government would make good for any damages an employer might incur if that employee did any of what you are talking about. BUT, AT NO TIME WOULD ANY EMPLOYER BE REQUIRED TO HIRE SOMEONE WITH A CRIMINAL BACKGROUND.
That would be a failure too. We did that here in Ohio. In fact one of the places I deliver too participated in the program. They were getting money from the state to hire felons.
It didn't take long before fights broke out between the felon workers and some being carted away in an ambulance. So the owner hired private security to keep them tame. That didn't work either as they attacked the security guard, so the security company refused to do business with the company unless they could provide an ample amount of officers to discourage violence and attacks on them. It ended up costing so much money for all the security that the owner got out of the program.
You can't say that what I propose is a failure, Ray. What I propose has never been tried.
You want to measure some half assed ideas against a complete program that has never been tried. There is no prison system , state or federal, that has the rehabilitation program I'm suggesting.
Ray, admit it. You like to argue, but like the Democrats, your ideology has a history of abject failure. You are afraid to explore new ideas and so what works and what don't is irrelevant. It's now about who has the most votes to stay in power. You don't want any solutions. You simply want your side to have power. That is made evident by your efforts to misrepresent me... much like the board troll on this thread does. It's dishonest, son.
Seems you have a problem with everybody misrepresenting you, so I"m in good company.
Prison is not a vocational school, prison is punishment.
. Agree with this also, but do you think that because of the guilt that was born over time in which had set so many bad things in motion, that it may have resulted in the changes we have since seen when it comes to the treatment of prisoners who have the high probability of rejoining society ?? Otherwise the expected fall out from it all was inevitable right ??? The guilt you see, has since led the culprits (that fixed the system in the ways that they had done), to then know that of course it was going to cause the huge problems that it caused, and so they are highly empathetic to the plight of the poor in prisons today... Why ??? Is it because they knew their policies and ideas helped to create the high population explosion in the prison systems over time ?????. Not good to waist time in prison if going to be let back out on the street. I would rather a good candidate for rehabilitation get that education in order to cope upon release, and yes with a job skill to boot if possible. Ray, do you realize that to a bum in prison, it is punishment for him or her to get education then forced upon them, and to make them work on a job skill to boot while on the inside.. Ohhh the horror's it must be for a buck wild bum to then be forced to get educated, and then to learn a job skill instead of running around selling drugs and impregnating your daughters. Wake up Ray.If I'm not mistaken, I have reiterated my position more than twice. Do you have some reason that your ideology cannot stand on its own merits?
I HAVE NOT AND DO NOT NOR HAVE I EVER ADVOCATED FORCING EMPLOYERS TO DO A DAMN THING
I currently have an idea floating around at the state level in Georgia to do away with early release of any prisoner in Georgia unless they undergo a rehabilitation program that includes, but is not limited to getting a GED, transferable job skills, and taking seminars in real life subject matter (like how to apply for a job, balance their checkbook, get a house / apartment, build up their credit rating, etc.)
Then I would advocate that the state give tax incentives for employers to give those people a second chance. The employer would, of course, have the advantage of hiring a bonded worker and the government would make good for any damages an employer might incur if that employee did any of what you are talking about. BUT, AT NO TIME WOULD ANY EMPLOYER BE REQUIRED TO HIRE SOMEONE WITH A CRIMINAL BACKGROUND.
That would be a failure too. We did that here in Ohio. In fact one of the places I deliver too participated in the program. They were getting money from the state to hire felons.
It didn't take long before fights broke out between the felon workers and some being carted away in an ambulance. So the owner hired private security to keep them tame. That didn't work either as they attacked the security guard, so the security company refused to do business with the company unless they could provide an ample amount of officers to discourage violence and attacks on them. It ended up costing so much money for all the security that the owner got out of the program.
You can't say that what I propose is a failure, Ray. What I propose has never been tried.
You want to measure some half assed ideas against a complete program that has never been tried. There is no prison system , state or federal, that has the rehabilitation program I'm suggesting.
Ray, admit it. You like to argue, but like the Democrats, your ideology has a history of abject failure. You are afraid to explore new ideas and so what works and what don't is irrelevant. It's now about who has the most votes to stay in power. You don't want any solutions. You simply want your side to have power. That is made evident by your efforts to misrepresent me... much like the board troll on this thread does. It's dishonest, son.
Seems you have a problem with everybody misrepresenting you, so I"m in good company.
Prison is not a vocational school, prison is punishment.
Well......I think there were less people wanting to be locked up before we turned them into "rehabilitation" centers; a day before computers, before workout rooms, before football fields and libraries, a day when you spent much of your day in a cell and not starting a family with your wife on the outside.
If our prisons were run like in the movie Cool Hand Luke, that was rehabilitation because you never wanted to be locked up like that.
. Not good to waist time in prison if going to be let back out on the street. I would rather a good candidate for rehabilitation get that education in order to cope upon release, and yes with a job skill to boot if possible. Ray, do you realize that to a bum in prison, it is punishment for him or her to get education then forced upon them, and to make them work on a job skill to boot while on the inside.. Ohhh the horror's it must be for a buck wild bum to then be forced to get educated, and then to learn a job skill instead of running around selling drugs and impregnating your daughters. Wake up Ray.If I'm not mistaken, I have reiterated my position more than twice. Do you have some reason that your ideology cannot stand on its own merits?
I HAVE NOT AND DO NOT NOR HAVE I EVER ADVOCATED FORCING EMPLOYERS TO DO A DAMN THING
I currently have an idea floating around at the state level in Georgia to do away with early release of any prisoner in Georgia unless they undergo a rehabilitation program that includes, but is not limited to getting a GED, transferable job skills, and taking seminars in real life subject matter (like how to apply for a job, balance their checkbook, get a house / apartment, build up their credit rating, etc.)
Then I would advocate that the state give tax incentives for employers to give those people a second chance. The employer would, of course, have the advantage of hiring a bonded worker and the government would make good for any damages an employer might incur if that employee did any of what you are talking about. BUT, AT NO TIME WOULD ANY EMPLOYER BE REQUIRED TO HIRE SOMEONE WITH A CRIMINAL BACKGROUND.
That would be a failure too. We did that here in Ohio. In fact one of the places I deliver too participated in the program. They were getting money from the state to hire felons.
It didn't take long before fights broke out between the felon workers and some being carted away in an ambulance. So the owner hired private security to keep them tame. That didn't work either as they attacked the security guard, so the security company refused to do business with the company unless they could provide an ample amount of officers to discourage violence and attacks on them. It ended up costing so much money for all the security that the owner got out of the program.
You can't say that what I propose is a failure, Ray. What I propose has never been tried.
You want to measure some half assed ideas against a complete program that has never been tried. There is no prison system , state or federal, that has the rehabilitation program I'm suggesting.
Ray, admit it. You like to argue, but like the Democrats, your ideology has a history of abject failure. You are afraid to explore new ideas and so what works and what don't is irrelevant. It's now about who has the most votes to stay in power. You don't want any solutions. You simply want your side to have power. That is made evident by your efforts to misrepresent me... much like the board troll on this thread does. It's dishonest, son.
Seems you have a problem with everybody misrepresenting you, so I"m in good company.
Prison is not a vocational school, prison is punishment.
Well......I think there were less people wanting to be locked up before we turned them into "rehabilitation" centers; a day before computers, before workout rooms, before football fields and libraries, a day when you spent much of your day in a cell and not starting a family with your wife on the outside.
If our prisons were run like in the movie Cool Hand Luke, that was rehabilitation because you never wanted to be locked up like that.
Government doing business in the wrong ways can also swell or cause prison population numbers to explode as well.
So, the haves can pay more in taxes than they can pay in wages? And, if we cut entitlements completely out, the have nots still could not afford to live. Crime would go up and the people would petition for a bigger government (more gun control, more prisons, more lost Liberties - 24 - 7 - 365 womb to the tomb surveillance.)
You realize this was the exact same argument the left made after welfare reform was passed in the 90's, don't you? It never happened, So what did happen? People got jobs, the government provided some training for jobs, families stayed together longer, people said they felt liberated for the first time in their lives. Birth rate slowed down because people had to start providing some support for their children.
You don't have a lot of confidence in your fellow citizen, do you?
Do you live in a vacuum? Our prison population has increased every year for a long time. Let's take the time period you cited:
Between 1990 and 2002 the federal prison population increased 153%! I won't even began to tell you what was going on at the local and state levels.
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/sp/1044.pdf
What really happened? More people started going to prison; the numbers of people on drugs went up. The recidivism rate in prisons went up.
Again, nice try at misrepresenting my position. I'm for reducing welfare. I'm also for taking steps to make sure people, including employers have options. Under my proposal, after a couple of years, you could see how many employers are paying the current rate of taxes and which ones opt for paying less taxes in exchange for helping Americans get jobs that pay a realistic wage.
Then you would have the real answer.
Your theory holds no water. Welfare reform was signed in August of 1996 which means the program didn't even get into swing until around late 1997 to 1998. Our prison population was already increasing at rapid levels before anything with welfare reform happened:
View attachment 165296
OMG, I cited the 1990s because YOU brought them up. Now you want to change the parameters?
Look, dude, let's make this simple. If you're right, then your side controls the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. They will pass the requisite bills and in the next election, Trump will be re-elected.
But, the reality is, whether you're talking Bush administrations, Clinton administrations, Obama or Trump, the situation has gotten worse and worse. I don't offer a theory. What I offer is a plan to see which position will increase the pay of American workers.
How did I change the parameters? I said welfare reform, and welfare reform passed in 1996.
. They don't need to be hiring or consider hiring illegals as in your hire anyone they want to idea. Just Americans to be hired, and if the nation needs additional help brought in for undesirable jobs such as seasonable work and such, then make it legal to come here temporarily again, and then leave within that same year. No one over stays a temp visa, no one.If Uncensored's posts cannot withstand scrutiny and honest questions, the ridiculousness is on him, not me.
So, we have laws against foreigners coming in here to take jobs when it is NOT required - NOR SHOULD IT BE NECESSARY for one to become a citizen in order to engage in the free market.
So then I assume you object to patents just as stringently as you object to borders and national sovereignty? After all, why should Chinese counterfeiters be blocked from the "free" market by something as simple as a patent?
Reference back to my prior posts, which you lacked the intellect to grasp.
Governments are formed among free men to secure natural rights. Among the most important right is that of property. Obviously you don't believe in private property. Intellectual property is protected by patents, national property is protected by borders.
You advocate that borders be ignored, that all may trespass on the property of others at will.
If you were to sit down with the average anti-immigrant before they were exposed to this thread and ask them what purpose the immigration laws serve, a primary reason would be to protect American jobs.
Borders protect the property rights of the legitimate inhabitants of a nation.
That you seek one world government is irrelevant to the need of a sovereign nation to secure the property rights of the citizens of that nation.
So, on the one hand we will engage the federal government to keep foreigners out on the pretext of protecting the American worker only, on the other hand, to make that same worker subservient to a much more powerful mega - corporation wherein the corporation has all the power and can keep the masses working for poverty wages. And some here find it unethical that I'm suggesting the corporations earn their tax breaks.
If your concern is the transfer of American wealth to Mexico, why not advocate for direct payments rather than this convoluted scheme to displace American workers with third world peasants who accept a vastly lower standard of living?
Unless of course your goal is to retard the standard of living for American workers?
The left often decries the collapse of unions and blames Republicans. But of course it was open borders that destroyed the unions, it was hordes of illegal aliens who accept a dramatically lower standard of living that broke the back of organized labor and began to push down the standard of living for Americans.
This is NOT about whether welfare is good or bad. The reality of our laws is that welfare IS. It exists. And, when employers don't pay employees a realistic wage, the government makes up the difference in welfare. Constitutionally, nobody has a specific right to welfare; however, when employers pay crap wages, welfare programs kick in and help those who don't make enough. The right denies WHO is on welfare; partly because they don't understand it; the left sees the haves as the enemies and somewhere between the extremes lies a solution that will incentivize employers to pay employees more money without being penalized. And you are NOT going to get most welfare outlawed.... Not even under Trump:
7 Lies About Welfare That Many People Believe Are Fact
There is right and wrong. Your desire to destroy the property rights of Americans, to force a significant decline in the standard of living for the once middle, but now under-class is a prime example of "wrong."
Now we're going to make this a pissing contest about what I said and did not say???
Now you're going to LIE about what I advocated and turn this into an immigration thread? You mean you are so insecure at this juncture that you want to misrepresent me to the point that you think that load of horseshit deserves a serious response?
Oh Hell yeah, you're the only defender of Liberty on this board. You are Patrick Henry, Paul Revere, and Nathan Hale bundled into one package.
For those of you who have actually READ this thread, I posited the fact that the right wants to put a wall around the United States under the pretext of government saving jobs from so - called "illegal aliens." It does NOT have me advocating one way or another on the issue. I'm pointing out that this is their pretext. Uncensored is creating multiple straw man arguments.
Truly, if someone were libertarian in their thought process, they would not object to an employer giving a job to whomever they think can work the job and do what the employer wants to get done at the price the employer can or be willing to pay. Uncensored pretends he's your knight on shining armor, but he is too ignorant to realize that a job belongs to the employer that creates it. So much for him being a champion of private property rights. A job belongs to an employer for the same reason that a song belongs to the songwriter that creates it.
I'm not saying any of you should like that or agree with it, but once you have gotten into the realm of telling an employer who they can and cannot hire, you've run out of legitimate reasons that you can't tell the employer how much they have to pay their employees.
I'm not advocating either position and Uncensored's lack of reading skills doth testify against him. I'm saying that if you give the employer the leeway, the employer gets to choose whether to retain the Right to hire whomever they want OR get substantial breaks to hire Americans and pay them a realistic wage. I think that such a system would reveal in a few years which position is really the most profitable.
If I'm not mistaken, I have reiterated my position more than twice. Do you have some reason that your ideology cannot stand on its own merits?
I HAVE NOT AND DO NOT NOR HAVE I EVER ADVOCATED FORCING EMPLOYERS TO DO A DAMN THING
I currently have an idea floating around at the state level in Georgia to do away with early release of any prisoner in Georgia unless they undergo a rehabilitation program that includes, but is not limited to getting a GED, transferable job skills, and taking seminars in real life subject matter (like how to apply for a job, balance their checkbook, get a house / apartment, build up their credit rating, etc.)
Then I would advocate that the state give tax incentives for employers to give those people a second chance. The employer would, of course, have the advantage of hiring a bonded worker and the government would make good for any damages an employer might incur if that employee did any of what you are talking about. BUT, AT NO TIME WOULD ANY EMPLOYER BE REQUIRED TO HIRE SOMEONE WITH A CRIMINAL BACKGROUND.
That would be a failure too. We did that here in Ohio. In fact one of the places I deliver too participated in the program. They were getting money from the state to hire felons.
It didn't take long before fights broke out between the felon workers and some being carted away in an ambulance. So the owner hired private security to keep them tame. That didn't work either as they attacked the security guard, so the security company refused to do business with the company unless they could provide an ample amount of officers to discourage violence and attacks on them. It ended up costing so much money for all the security that the owner got out of the program.
You can't say that what I propose is a failure, Ray. What I propose has never been tried.
You want to measure some half assed ideas against a complete program that has never been tried. There is no prison system , state or federal, that has the rehabilitation program I'm suggesting.
Ray, admit it. You like to argue, but like the Democrats, your ideology has a history of abject failure. You are afraid to explore new ideas and so what works and what don't is irrelevant. It's now about who has the most votes to stay in power. You don't want any solutions. You simply want your side to have power. That is made evident by your efforts to misrepresent me... much like the board troll on this thread does. It's dishonest, son.
Seems you have a problem with everybody misrepresenting you, so I"m in good company.
Prison is not a vocational school, prison is punishment.
And rehabilitation doesn’t happen, it works for a few but the vast majority of the prison population isn’t wanting to rehab, they want to make sure they aren’t caught the next time.
Exactly. How does one rehab an extremely violent person or one who dedicated their life to drugs?
That would be a failure too. We did that here in Ohio. In fact one of the places I deliver too participated in the program. They were getting money from the state to hire felons.
It didn't take long before fights broke out between the felon workers and some being carted away in an ambulance. So the owner hired private security to keep them tame. That didn't work either as they attacked the security guard, so the security company refused to do business with the company unless they could provide an ample amount of officers to discourage violence and attacks on them. It ended up costing so much money for all the security that the owner got out of the program.
You can't say that what I propose is a failure, Ray. What I propose has never been tried.
You want to measure some half assed ideas against a complete program that has never been tried. There is no prison system , state or federal, that has the rehabilitation program I'm suggesting.
Ray, admit it. You like to argue, but like the Democrats, your ideology has a history of abject failure. You are afraid to explore new ideas and so what works and what don't is irrelevant. It's now about who has the most votes to stay in power. You don't want any solutions. You simply want your side to have power. That is made evident by your efforts to misrepresent me... much like the board troll on this thread does. It's dishonest, son.
Seems you have a problem with everybody misrepresenting you, so I"m in good company.
Prison is not a vocational school, prison is punishment.
And rehabilitation doesn’t happen, it works for a few but the vast majority of the prison population isn’t wanting to rehab, they want to make sure they aren’t caught the next time.
Exactly. How does one rehab an extremely violent person or one who dedicated their life to drugs?
What kind of society sends that caliber of people back onto the streets after they are caught? Perhaps YOUR kind of society?
You realize this was the exact same argument the left made after welfare reform was passed in the 90's, don't you? It never happened, So what did happen? People got jobs, the government provided some training for jobs, families stayed together longer, people said they felt liberated for the first time in their lives. Birth rate slowed down because people had to start providing some support for their children.
You don't have a lot of confidence in your fellow citizen, do you?
Do you live in a vacuum? Our prison population has increased every year for a long time. Let's take the time period you cited:
Between 1990 and 2002 the federal prison population increased 153%! I won't even began to tell you what was going on at the local and state levels.
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/sp/1044.pdf
What really happened? More people started going to prison; the numbers of people on drugs went up. The recidivism rate in prisons went up.
Again, nice try at misrepresenting my position. I'm for reducing welfare. I'm also for taking steps to make sure people, including employers have options. Under my proposal, after a couple of years, you could see how many employers are paying the current rate of taxes and which ones opt for paying less taxes in exchange for helping Americans get jobs that pay a realistic wage.
Then you would have the real answer.
Your theory holds no water. Welfare reform was signed in August of 1996 which means the program didn't even get into swing until around late 1997 to 1998. Our prison population was already increasing at rapid levels before anything with welfare reform happened:
View attachment 165296
OMG, I cited the 1990s because YOU brought them up. Now you want to change the parameters?
Look, dude, let's make this simple. If you're right, then your side controls the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. They will pass the requisite bills and in the next election, Trump will be re-elected.
But, the reality is, whether you're talking Bush administrations, Clinton administrations, Obama or Trump, the situation has gotten worse and worse. I don't offer a theory. What I offer is a plan to see which position will increase the pay of American workers.
How did I change the parameters? I said welfare reform, and welfare reform passed in 1996.
First off, if you do not cite laws, cases, etc. to build your case on, you can't expect me to do your work for you.
In post # 1010 you state:
"You realize this was the exact same argument the left made after welfare reform was passed in the 90's..."
AFTER I covered the stats for the 90s, you then claim figures that didn't start until 1997 /1998. The government doesn't even to try and extrapolate from that any cause / effect for at least three years of study.
Cudos, you left yourself a lot of wiggle room to build a phony case.
De Leon was a Marxist. You always end your quotes half way through what they are saying. Why not the whole quote? Is it because it changes what you are trying to claim it says? Here is the whole quote:. They don't need to be hiring or consider hiring illegals as in your hire anyone they want to idea. Just Americans to be hired, and if the nation needs additional help brought in for undesirable jobs such as seasonable work and such, then make it legal to come here temporarily again, and then leave within that same year. No one over stays a temp visa, no one.If Uncensored's posts cannot withstand scrutiny and honest questions, the ridiculousness is on him, not me.
So, we have laws against foreigners coming in here to take jobs when it is NOT required - NOR SHOULD IT BE NECESSARY for one to become a citizen in order to engage in the free market.
So then I assume you object to patents just as stringently as you object to borders and national sovereignty? After all, why should Chinese counterfeiters be blocked from the "free" market by something as simple as a patent?
Reference back to my prior posts, which you lacked the intellect to grasp.
Governments are formed among free men to secure natural rights. Among the most important right is that of property. Obviously you don't believe in private property. Intellectual property is protected by patents, national property is protected by borders.
You advocate that borders be ignored, that all may trespass on the property of others at will.
If you were to sit down with the average anti-immigrant before they were exposed to this thread and ask them what purpose the immigration laws serve, a primary reason would be to protect American jobs.
Borders protect the property rights of the legitimate inhabitants of a nation.
That you seek one world government is irrelevant to the need of a sovereign nation to secure the property rights of the citizens of that nation.
So, on the one hand we will engage the federal government to keep foreigners out on the pretext of protecting the American worker only, on the other hand, to make that same worker subservient to a much more powerful mega - corporation wherein the corporation has all the power and can keep the masses working for poverty wages. And some here find it unethical that I'm suggesting the corporations earn their tax breaks.
If your concern is the transfer of American wealth to Mexico, why not advocate for direct payments rather than this convoluted scheme to displace American workers with third world peasants who accept a vastly lower standard of living?
Unless of course your goal is to retard the standard of living for American workers?
The left often decries the collapse of unions and blames Republicans. But of course it was open borders that destroyed the unions, it was hordes of illegal aliens who accept a dramatically lower standard of living that broke the back of organized labor and began to push down the standard of living for Americans.
This is NOT about whether welfare is good or bad. The reality of our laws is that welfare IS. It exists. And, when employers don't pay employees a realistic wage, the government makes up the difference in welfare. Constitutionally, nobody has a specific right to welfare; however, when employers pay crap wages, welfare programs kick in and help those who don't make enough. The right denies WHO is on welfare; partly because they don't understand it; the left sees the haves as the enemies and somewhere between the extremes lies a solution that will incentivize employers to pay employees more money without being penalized. And you are NOT going to get most welfare outlawed.... Not even under Trump:
7 Lies About Welfare That Many People Believe Are Fact
There is right and wrong. Your desire to destroy the property rights of Americans, to force a significant decline in the standard of living for the once middle, but now under-class is a prime example of "wrong."
Now we're going to make this a pissing contest about what I said and did not say???
Now you're going to LIE about what I advocated and turn this into an immigration thread? You mean you are so insecure at this juncture that you want to misrepresent me to the point that you think that load of horseshit deserves a serious response?
Oh Hell yeah, you're the only defender of Liberty on this board. You are Patrick Henry, Paul Revere, and Nathan Hale bundled into one package.
For those of you who have actually READ this thread, I posited the fact that the right wants to put a wall around the United States under the pretext of government saving jobs from so - called "illegal aliens." It does NOT have me advocating one way or another on the issue. I'm pointing out that this is their pretext. Uncensored is creating multiple straw man arguments.
Truly, if someone were libertarian in their thought process, they would not object to an employer giving a job to whomever they think can work the job and do what the employer wants to get done at the price the employer can or be willing to pay. Uncensored pretends he's your knight on shining armor, but he is too ignorant to realize that a job belongs to the employer that creates it. So much for him being a champion of private property rights. A job belongs to an employer for the same reason that a song belongs to the songwriter that creates it.
I'm not saying any of you should like that or agree with it, but once you have gotten into the realm of telling an employer who they can and cannot hire, you've run out of legitimate reasons that you can't tell the employer how much they have to pay their employees.
I'm not advocating either position and Uncensored's lack of reading skills doth testify against him. I'm saying that if you give the employer the leeway, the employer gets to choose whether to retain the Right to hire whomever they want OR get substantial breaks to hire Americans and pay them a realistic wage. I think that such a system would reveal in a few years which position is really the most profitable.
I can argue this issue one way or the other. You have to make up your mind whether you are on the right or the left of this issue (although both sides are unified here and both going toward a NEW WORLD ORDER.)
Either a job belongs to the employer OR it belongs to the people. When people say so - called "illegals" are stealing our (sic) jobs, they are inadvertently claiming that the jobs are owned by the people of the U.S.. If, indeed, the jobs are owned by society, you have socialism.
"Socialism," as the American Socialist Daniel De Leon defined it, "is that social system under which the necessaries of production are owned, controlled and administered by the people..."
What Is Socialism?, socialist education, socialism online, socialist organization
I'M NOT TAKING SIDES ON THIS POINT
My critics are crying foul, but the right is the ones wanting to build a wall around America AND the genesis for the idea came not from conservatives, but from National Socialists and the theories were espoused first by Democrats. Don't get mad at me. I'm only telling you what is true. I'm only telling you what socialism is, according to the socialists themselves.
My critics can stomp their feet until Hell freezes over, but it will not change the facts. Neither will it make me a socialist. Dude, for real. I sometimes I advertise gigs on Craigslist. I need some landscape work done, a room painted, etc. I advertise. If you can do the work at the price I can pay, you got the job. The government, the people, nor anybody else is going to tell me who I can and cannot hire. I know what I can afford and when I need the job done. That's me. Every individual answers for himself.
"Socialism," as the American Socialist Daniel De Leon defined it, "is that social system under which the necessaries of production are owned, controlled and administered by the people, for the people, and under which, accordingly, the cause of political and economic despotism having been abolished, class rule is at end. That is socialism, nothing short of that." And we might add, nothing more than that!
