No, they incarcerate more. Racism is unfortunately worldwide.
"Black prisoners make up 15% of the prisoner population and this compares with 2.2% of the general population – there is greater disproportionality in the number of black people in prisons in the UK than there is in the United States."
Maybe the US govt can start twampling the 6th through 10th amendments next year
Don't forget the 1st, 2nd and of course the 4th.
In fact, the 3rd amendment is the only one that I'm aware of that they haven't tried to violently violate, yet.
I agree, that's why I sold my 1st gen iPad. I don't expect a decade of support, but at least more than 2 years.
Sir Bedevere: No, no. What else floats in water?
Peasant 1: Bread.
Peasant 2: Apples.
Peasant 3: Very small rocks.
I agree that we in the US have long ago since stopped being the land of the free, but I don't think Stalin is a good comparison. I doubt we really know how many people disappeared in the night, how many were actually incarcerated, how many were sent to Siberia, how many were just killed outright.
I actually expected this to be an article about how the infotainment systems were causing wrecks and was a bad idea, not that we should just use a phone os to do it.
This is The United States of America. How dare you expect anyone in this nanny-state to be responsible for their own decisions, good or bad. If you make good decisions and manage to claw your way up to the upper echelons of society, you need to pay your fair share. And if by some chance you are aren't one of the lucky few, then by god, the Federal govt will take care of you. Because bad decisions are never based on your decision making shares, but it must be someone elses fault.
You're right, I went off on a rant (stupid HTML shit pissed me off at work). The banning cars argument is stupid. How's this argument.
Drunk drivers kill people , but people still do it, therefore we need to ban or license alcohol.
Is basically the same argument as
Criminals with guns kill people, therefore we need to either ban or require a license to own a gun.
Both of these are stupid arguments when looked at logically, criminals will break the law, while non-criminals won't. Requiring a license to buy a gun or alcohol will not stop people from getting killed. It might make it a little harder, but I doubt it. The Newtown shooting happened because a person stole guns from a law-abiding citizen. Had his mother had a license or not, it doesn't matter, those kids are still dead. The same thing in Virginia Tech. The student bought guns, after a background check. What more laws do we need? What is different between having to have a background check or having to have a license to buy a gun?
Of course it's a civil rights violation. It involves the internet and a bunch of fucking geeks. Now if Google said we were removing all ads that contained gun ads, that everyone would be like Hell Yeah Google, way to stick it to ignorant rednecks. I hate double standards. Do what you will, but don't step on things we like.
It's also illegal to go around and kill people with a gun. Still happens. You can't protect people by taking away rights. Criminals are going to commit crimes.
In this day and age, I think a joke is probable cause to start an investigation. I don't think it's probable cause to have someone arrested. I think there needs to be some substantial evidence that a crime is actually going to be committed before you start to think of taking away one's freedoms.
Every day in America, another 27 people die as a result of drunk driving crashes. That's over 9500 people a year. There are 211,000,000 registered drivers I propose we ban either cars or alcohol. I'll let you pick. The death rate is about the same number, but the number of drivers is less than the number of guns, so you're more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than you are to be shot to death. Not much though. I assume you agree with me that all cars or alcohol should be banned? Or maybe you just think we should only allow smaller cars. Nobody really needs to drive a 2-ton dually death machine anyways. Or maybe we should just ban all alcohol but wine. Nobody ever gets drunk on wine and drives a car. And no the argument that it's fun to just drink a few beers in not a strong argument for not banning alcohol.
Yes everyone should have the right to exercise freedom of thought and speech as long as they don't commit crimes. He shouldn't be arrested. Kept an eye on, maybe, I'm not actually making that argument either. I'm just pointing out that they should do their actual jobs (it's okay to investigate such a case, get a warrant from a judge, search around, keep an eye on the kid, station an officer outside said elementary school during school hours, patrol the neighborhood a little more, I'm sure there are a hundred other things that could have been done besides arresting the guy), not just arrest some kids for stupid comments.
IMO, if he had some credible weapons lying around, then at least you can charge him with intent after making a comment like that. You can threaten all day long, but if you don't have the tools needed to carry out that threat, then no you shouldn't be locked up in jail.
But high speed internet is a basic human right. You can't take away someones right to the internet, just their right to free speech on said internet.
Many people write memos to tell you they have nothing to say.
