Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Falcon Horus]

In my mind, paying someone to not break the law is just plain wrong.

But they aren't paying them - these people have to go to therapy and make a pledge almost to not break the law. I imagine, should they break the law afterwards, they're gonna have to pay that money back.

If they were given - I don't know - coupons to buy food or get a reduction at shops, would that have been better?

You're always complaining about people making the wrong choices and others having to pay for those choices. Well now, someone wants to prevent those same people making a bad criminal choic by giving them something to work for so that in the future they would be able to look out for themselves... and you're still not happy.

[Annoyed]

You're always complaining about people making the wrong choices and others having to pay for those choices. Well now, someone wants to prevent those same people making a bad criminal choic by giving them something to work for so that in the future they would be able to look out for themselves... and you're still not happy.

It still ends up that someone is paying for their choices, or not to make certain choices.
How about not committing a crime simply for the sale of obeying the laws ? Or if that isn't good enough, then how about not committing a crime to stay out of jail or screwing your record up?

No, I'm sorry, I cannot justify this for any reason.

[Annoyed]

Another thing... when are they going to pay all of the people who don't break the laws ? If the potential criminal is entitled to the payment, so is everyone who doesn't break the law.
Equal treatment under the law, remember? 14th amendment, as I recall.

Been roughly 40 years since I was 18, so where is my money? 40 x 9000 = 360,000 dollars.
I could use that money.

[Falcon Horus]

If you follow the program - i.e. go to behavioral therapy by all means.

If I visit a psychologist, I will get my money back thanks to a great health insurance. So, I do get paid... although, I'm not likely to commit a crime other than speeding.

[garhkal]

Got a question for those in the US here. Why do they do caucuses in some states like Iowa? My state of South Dakota has primaries, and I thought that all states did. And what's with the coin toss thing? I don't understand it at all. I'm not trying to start anything, I'm just trying to understand how they do things in Iowa. Any answers out there? Thanks!

I've been wondering that myself, why is it NH and Iowa get Caucuses, while everywhere else seems to get primaries..

I can't believe they are even considering this:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...02-02-13-17-17

WASHINGTON (AP) -- They say crime doesn't pay, but that might not be entirely true in the District of Columbia as lawmakers look for ways to discourage people from becoming repeat offenders.

The D.C. Council voted unanimously Tuesday to approve a bill that includes a proposal to pay residents a stipend not to commit crimes. It's based on a program in Richmond, California, that advocates say has contributed to deep reductions in crime there.

Under the bill, city officials would identify up to 200 people a year who are considered at risk of either committing or becoming victims of violent crime. Those people would be directed to participate in behavioral therapy and other programs. If they fulfill those obligations and stay out of trouble, they would be paid.

The bill doesn't specify the value of the stipends, but participants in the California program receive up to $9,000 per year.

This is absurd.

It most definitely is absurd. Paying people for not breaking the law?? I am sorry, but why not just PROSECUTE them!

Another thing... when are they going to pay all of the people who don't break the laws ? If the potential criminal is entitled to the payment, so is everyone who doesn't break the law.
Equal treatment under the law, remember? 14th amendment, as I recall.

Been roughly 40 years since I was 18, so where is my money? 40 x 9000 = 360,000 dollars.
I could use that money.

Good point Annoyed. If it's seen as discrimination for gays to not be legally allowed to marry (even though the constitution does NOT give marriage as a right), all cause of someone's interpretation of the 14th amendment, then is it not equally discriminatory to only pay a subset of the population for 'not breaking the law' when the rest of the population makes the conscious choice to not break it day in and day out.??


And in other news, Minnosota is showing that they are getting as batship crazy as CA..
Banning Valentines day, Xmas, Thanksgiving and Halloween cause they are "Dominant holidays and thus are not inclusive"??

http://www.turnto23.com/news/nationa...nnesota-school

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/..._holidays.html

http://www.morningledger.com/valenti...rance/1357555/

[Falcon Horus]

I've been wondering that myself, why is it NH and Iowa get Caucuses, while everywhere else seems to get primaries..

From the link I posted, I learned that it's up the states to choose what they want to do... apparently. There's no law that says it has to be a caucuses or a primary. It's all up to the people.

It most definitely is absurd. Paying people for not breaking the law?? I am sorry, but why not just PROSECUTE them!

They haven't committed a crime yet and it's through therapy the state wants to keep it that way. Keeping them on the straightened arrow.

Another article states it would cost less to keep them out of trouble, than to have them sitting in a jailcell somewhere. I'd call that a win for the taxpayer.

If it's seen as discrimination for gays to not be legally allowed to marry (even though the constitution does NOT give marriage as a right), all cause of someone's interpretation of the 14th amendment, then is it not equally discriminatory to only pay a subset of the population for 'not breaking the law' when the rest of the population makes the conscious choice to not break it day in and day out.??

That's quite possibly the lousiest and whiniest comparison ever.

Also, what is your problem with granting gay couples the same rights as straight couples?

http://www.turnto23.com/news/nationa...nnesota-school

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/..._holidays.html

http://www.morningledger.com/valenti...rance/1357555/

A) Valentine's Day is not a holiday.
B) It's a commercial day
C) Valentine was decapitated for loving the wrong woman.

D) Day of love my ass...

[pookey]

I will refrain from loving your ass, tho it may be a nice one, i dont know, but i agree, only done so Hallmark can make a bit of money

[Annoyed]

Also, what is your problem with granting gay couples the same rights as straight couples?

What is your problem treating law abiding citizens the same as criminals?

This is really a neat logical trap. I don't think you can get out of it without ignoring the constitutional arguments the LGBT folks used. If the 14th amendment applies to them, it applies to this too. Unlike the current occupant of the white house, you're not supposed to be able to choose when a law applies. Equal treatment under the law doesn't matter what the topic is. If it's the law, it's the law.

[Falcon Horus]

I will refrain from loving your ass, tho it may be a nice one, i dont know, but i agree, only done so Hallmark can make a bit of money

Woops... should have added a comma.

What is your problem treating law abiding citizens the same as criminals?

I have no problem sending everyone to jail. Just in case - kinda like Minority Report this.

This is really a neat logical trap. I don't think you can get out of it without ignoring the constitutional arguments the LGBT folks used. If the 14th amendment applies to them, it applies to this too. Unlike the current occupant of the white house, you're not supposed to be able to choose when a law applies. Equal treatment under the law doesn't matter what the topic is. If it's the law, it's the law.

Because being gay isn't a choice. While being a criminal is.

Ha, take that!

[Falcon Horus]

Found an article about the program in Richmond, California:

The town where it literally pays to be a criminal

The ONS would pay them a stipend and help them with basic goals like getting a driver’s license and obtaining health care in exchange for their good behaviour. The program also implemented a strong focus on conflict-resolution counselling.

Over an 18-month period, ONS participants receive anywhere from US$300 to $1,000 per month, depending on their progress following a “life map” of personal goals.

It may be a radical approach to rely more heavily on the carrot than the stick, but the results are beginning to speak for themselves as crime is down in the city and the murder rate has dropped by over two thirds.

In 2013, Richmond saw its lowest number of homicides in 33 years with a total of 16. Last year, that number dropped to a new recorded low of 11 which is a far cry from the recorded high of 62 in 1990.

While community members believe it is due to a number of factors including a steady increase in employment, they attribute a lot of the city’s reduction in crime to the Office of Neighbourhood Safety.

The ONS typically operates on a yearly budget of around $1.2 million (as well as private donations).

[pookey]

Woops... should have added a comma.



I have no problem sending everyone to jail. Just in case - kinda like Minority Report this.



Because being gay isn't a choice. While being a criminal is.

Ha, take that!

That bolded bit made me

[dipsofjazz]

They haven't committed a crime yet and it's through therapy the state wants to keep it that way. Keeping them on the straightened arrow.

I'm sorry to be pedantic, but the phrase you want is "straight and narrow", as shown here and here.

[Annoyed]

Found an article about the program in Richmond, California:

The town where it literally pays to be a criminal

a steady increase in employment,

That is more likely the real cause of improvement in the area.

Paying people to not be criminals is just wrong.

[Gatefan1976]

That is more likely the real cause of improvement in the area.

Paying people to not be criminals is just wrong.

What do you think of free mental heathcare for at risk people?

[Falcon Horus]

I'm sorry to be pedantic, but the phrase you want is "straight and narrow", as shown here and here.

I'm not a native speaker so thanks for the lesson.

[/B]That bolded bit made me

Not my best counter argument but oh well..