Re: Supreme court to decide federal sex offender law, faggots could be jailed indefinitely.
Dank 110100100
<nobody.likes.fagg...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE55L44320090622
>
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday that
> it would decide whether Congress may adopt a federal law that
> keeps sex offenders in custody indefinitely after they complete
> their prison sentences.
>
> The high court agreed to hear an Obama administration appeal
> seeking to reinstate a 2006 law providing for the continued
> detention of "sexually dangerous" convicted federal inmates who
> have served their prison terms.
>
> A U.S. appeals court based in Virginia struck down the law for
> exceeding the limits of congressional authority and intruding on
> police powers Constitution reserves for the states, many of
> which have similar laws.
It is to be expected that the Obama administration is arguing for the
authority to incarcerate people indefinitely, since Obama has already
announced he intends to hold the Guantánamo detainees without charges
or trials.
It does not make sense to have laws specifying minimum/maximum prison
sentences if the state has the authority to ignore them and hold
people forever just because it says they are dangerous. If a crime is
so heinous, then simply sentence the criminal to life in prison.
Why stop with sex offenders? Why not imprison people who have not
committed any crime but who you believe MIGHT commit a crime in the
future? Why not have Dr. Fucking Phil psychoanalyze everyone and
pronounce them as either mentally hygienic or potential offenders, and
lock them up for their own protection?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
"In Oceania there is no law. Thoughts and actions which, when
detected, mean certain death are not formally forbidden, and the
endless purges, arrests, tortures, imprisonments, and vaporizations
are not inflicted as punishment for crimes which have actually been
committed, but are merely the wiping-out of persons who might perhaps
commit a crime at some time in the future."
-- 1984
Day Brown
> Why stop with sex offenders? Why not imprison people who have not
> committed any crime but who you believe MIGHT commit a crime in the
> future? Why not have Dr. Fucking Phil psychoanalyze everyone and
> pronounce them as either mentally hygienic or potential offenders, and
> lock them up for their own protection?
are worried. But at the same time, 100 years ago, the shrinks were
telling us masturbation caused insanity. 80 years ago, that premarital
sex caused bad marriages. During WWII, they were treating what we now
call PTSD with aspirin and sending men back to the front. 40 years ago,
they said autism was caused by erratic mothering, and 20 years back they
were saying they could cure homosexuality.
So, what bullschitt are they foisting upon us now?
But Dank, they've been putting people away in asylums long before Obama.
That you cant seem to recall this, as if Obama had invented it, is
indicative of delusion. Dr. Freud noted how neurotics cannot tolerate
ambiguity, so you blindly support everything a political figure who
panders to your sensibilities does, and blindly condemn any political
figure who doesnt, even ascribing to him traits and policies that are
not his because they fit your dualistic delusions.
No wonder you are worried.
Dank 110100100
> But Dank, they've been putting people away in asylums long before Obama.
> That you cant seem to recall this, as if Obama had invented it, is
> indicative of delusion. Dr. Freud noted how neurotics cannot tolerate
> ambiguity, so you blindly support everything a political figure who
> panders to your sensibilities does, and blindly condemn any political
> figure who doesnt, even ascribing to him traits and policies that are
> not his because they fit your dualistic delusions.
Did I ask for your two-bit psychoanalysis? And you are incorrect,
because I have NEVER supported any political figure. I believe all
political movements, religions (including psychology), social causes,
etc. are false. When it comes to politics, I don't vote FOR something
I like, I vote AGAINST something I hate more.
> No wonder you are worried.
I'm worried about the rule of constitutional law being perverted by
modern day witch hunters. The government accuses you of a crime,
prosecutes you, presents evidence in court, the jury decides the
evidence is invalid and acquits you, and you are still locked up
because Dr. Fucking Phil says he can read your mind and knows you are
guilty. Is this the kind of world you want to live in?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
"The two aims of the Party are to conquer the whole surface of the
earth and to extinguish once and for all the possibility of
independent thought. There are therefore two great problems which the
Party is concerned to solve. One is how to discover, against his
will, what another human being is thinking, and the other is how to
kill several hundred million people in a few seconds without giving
warning beforehand. In so far as scientific research still continues,
this is its subject matter. The scientist of today is either a
mixture of psychologist and inquisitor, studying with real ordinary
minuteness the meaning of facial expressions, gestures, and tones of
voice, and testing the truth-producing effects of drugs, shock
therapy, hypnosis, and physical torture; or he is chemist, physicist,
or biologist concerned only with such branches of his special subject
as are relevant to the taking of life."
-- 1984
Day Brown
> On Jun 28, 5:22 pm, Day Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> But Dank, they've been putting people away in asylums long before Obama.
>> That you cant seem to recall this, as if Obama had invented it, is
>> indicative of delusion. Dr. Freud noted how neurotics cannot tolerate
>> ambiguity, so you blindly support everything a political figure who
>> panders to your sensibilities does, and blindly condemn any political
>> figure who doesnt, even ascribing to him traits and policies that are
>> not his because they fit your dualistic delusions.
>
> Did I ask for your two-bit psychoanalysis? And you are incorrect,
> because I have NEVER supported any political figure. I believe all
> political movements, religions (including psychology), social causes,
> etc. are false. When it comes to politics, I don't vote FOR something
> I like, I vote AGAINST something I hate more.
>> No wonder you are worried.
>
> I'm worried about the rule of constitutional law being perverted by
> modern day witch hunters. The government accuses you of a crime,
> prosecutes you, presents evidence in court, the jury decides the
> evidence is invalid and acquits you, and you are still locked up
> because Dr. Fucking Phil says he can read your mind and knows you are
> guilty. Is this the kind of world you want to live in?
I am rather more careful in how I express myself in postings because I
know they could be dragged out at a sanity hearing to imply, by the
number of angry rants, that I am in need of meds.
I didnt offer you a two-bit diagnosis; I merely point out what posts
look like. You mite have a look at Stoicsm; "The Golden Sayings of
Epictetus" begins with him noting that people endeavor to exercise the
eye if they wish to become a better painter, muscles of a better
athlete, the ear for a more harmonious music, and so on, and asks if it
mite not be possible to improve the reasoning faculty.
So, you would not start out with weighty issues until you are practiced
to deal with them, but satisfy your self with rather more self control
than I see in the postings, reserving judgment, and tolerating higher
levels of ambiguity, as Freud seems to imply, in order to have a clearer
vision of what is going on. The usual issues of religion, the nature of
God or the soul, that can wait until your mind is stronger.