Paradise

You shouldn't conflate the alt right with conservative.

Hard to tell on line.

Wanna laugh?

imgflip.com/i/31766m

No, I took it as separate from the line above.

Sure you can do it, but you're doing it wrong. It was the Dems that wrote the laws that put more minorities in jails, and the left that wants to restrict freedoms. Religious services - didn't know there's pressure to attend them in prison, but the concept is indeed a conservative one.

bill Clintons administration pushed the three strikes law,and biden was a big proponent.

As she remarked on black youths

Your questions were poorly written. As such, addressing them would have been pointless.

Let me know if you would like further explanation.

Tisk Tisk little one.

What you actually wrote is "Democrats wrote laws that put more minorities in jails? Proof? Because I thought it was Republicans who are supposed to be tough on crime."

It is poorly written in that the language implies that only Republicans are tough on crime, from there it reads that Democrats are supporting of lawlessness as they are not tough on crime.

Further the question is massively ignorant in terms of legislation undertaken by Democrats (the three strikes provision is just a small part of the 1994 crime bill). Then of course there was the corrupt DEMOCRAT judge Mark Ciavarella who accepted cash payments in exchange for sentencing minorities to longer prison sentences, but lets just focus on legislation.

"Are you saying the right doesn't want to restrict freedoms?" Again another poorly written question in that you are flippantly using the term "Freedoms". What "freedoms" are the right seeking to restrict, to your mind?

As juvenile detainees are largely populated with minorities, its pretty fair to say that minorities were impacted by the corrupt DEMOCRAT judge and his kids 4 cash scam. But again, statistics are difficult to comprehend for the intellectually challenged.

"I was sarcastically implying that only Republicans are tough on crime, because that's what many conservatives seem to think."

LOL...."sarcasm"...yeah...

"People on the right want to restrict numerous freedoms, as far as I'm concerned"

So, its your opinion. Got it.

I see no benefit in discussing your final paragraph and its claims, not because it's accurate and therefore not debatable, but rather because you simply see conservatives as bigots and no amount of discourse will dissuade you of that opinion.

No. It was not. At no point did I stop to ponder the deeper meaning behind his question. Now answere the bloody damn question and stop dodging!

ARE YOU BLIND....??? Did I not point to Clinton's signing of the 1994 crime bill which was largely supported by Democrats and opposed by Republicans.

First off there was nothing TO critique about HIS question. It was plain and obvious you were trying to dodge!

Second off. That was ONE bill, whuch was tough on certain groups of people. Fair enough. Doesn't change that Democrats are the ones who are championing equal rights for minorities. Not Republicans.

"First off there was nothing TO critique about HIS question. It was plain and obvious you were trying to dodge!"

I dodged his question by listing the legislation passed by democrats, and by highlighting a corrupt judge to accepted cash payments to serve longer sentences on minority youth?

"Second off. That was ONE bill, whuch was tough on certain groups of people. Fair enough. Doesn't change that Democrats are the ones who are championing equal rights for minorities. Not Republicans."

LOL....so its gone from "show me the Democrat law" to "that's just one example"..LOL what a joke you are.

Lastly, minorities HAVE equal rights in the United States. What Democrats are "championing" is intersectionality, where the opinion of one party is elevated above another because of their race, sexual orientation, gender, religious beliefs or combination thereof. It's Democrats who are constantly dividing Americans across such lines, dissecting people into smaller and smaller groups all to create a false narrative of oppression.

"I dodged his question by listing the legislation passed by democrats, and by highlighting a corrupt judge to..."

Ho ho ho. That is what you did AFTER you were called out not before:

*"The rest if your comment"*

How about a big fat no, to your little web of interconnected lies?

That wasn't me dodging you ignorant oaf. It was me giving OM a chance to redraft the incredibly stupid question. And if you read the last sentence, I said I would be happy to provide further explanation. That is not a dodge, moron.

"It was me giving OM a chance to redraft the incredibly stupid question."

See the problem is. There was nothing hard to understand about his question. So that makes two possibilities clear for me. A) your dodging or B) you genuinely found it hard to comprehend his question, in which case your an idiot. Both work for me so. Sure whatever you say buddy.

"See the problem is. There was nothing hard to understand about his question. So that makes two possibilities clear for me." --- LOL...I never said "the question was hard to understand"...I said it was poorly written. You really are a wealth of stupid.

"I said it was poorly written."

Whuch it was not. But that you found it poorly written and refused to answere it shows A) You didn't understand it (Which I have been assuming after you have denied B)) or B) You were dodging the question.

No dumbass, it was poorly written, which my later discussion with OM demonstrated, and as you admitted you didn't even critique the question.

Now f**k off little boy.

How about a big fat no? F**king idiot.

Also, its NOT my fault you didn't take time to actually critique his/her question for its poor writing and implication

"but I recall hearing about some places where prisoners are given more privileges or something like that if they attend religious services."

That such a system somehow got implemented tells you a lot about your Prison system.

What about rehabilitation are you missing?

How is attending a Religous service rehabilitation? Prison should be rewarding good behaviour instead of being a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew or anything. How is praying going to rehabilitate a Serial Killer? Wrong priorities in my opinion.

Yeah, because religion is all about prayer. Take a look at the ten commandments sometime. There have been many people that have found religion in prison and turned their lives around regardless of your dismissal of it. But you're entitled to your opinion *shrugs*

Okay, but I'd think the powers that be would look at it as a possibility to get some to look at their actions and hopefully bring down recidivism rates rather than a push for a total religion conversion.

I don't know what incentives they offer.

If it helps in rehabilitation, what's the issue? Would you be against psychiatry for inmates?

But if the inmates aren't being forced, what's the issue? Doesn't the Free Exercise Clause say that government can't prevent religion from being observed free from interference?

I guess it is a little bit of both. Conservatives support the three-strikes laws and the mandatory minimums - both designed to target recidivists. But it is Leftists that criminalize everything under the sun, with the biggest culprit being Clinton's 1994 crime bill that gets most credit for jailing most minorities because it made drug USE be almost as much of a crime as drug sales and it made use of crack have a lot stricter punishment than cocaine or most other drugs. Clinton was a strong supporter of this bill which was passed by 188 Dems 45 Reps, and 1 Independent Idiot (Sanders). Voting against it were 64 Dems and 131 Reps.

Drug epidemic goes back to the Vietnam War, though it did hit fever pitch in the 80s. Republicans do present themselves as tough on crime and strong on justice, they just don't write really bad laws that do nothing to stop crime while taking black fathers away from their families to create a cycle of broken families.

And 3 strikes is a state and not federal legislation, so it wasn't part of the crime bill.

Octavia, Octavia. Dear, you keep switching the context to bring your agenda. The context here is a liberal paradise for liberals to live in. Your misguided context is the assumption of where conservatives wishes blacks and Hispanics to live at. Personally I am a Hispanic conservative and have a lot to say about your comment, but will start feeding it to you in small chunks so that I do not overwhelm your very limited brain capacity. Let's start with just that for now. Context.

When your dead, rotting in the ground, you no longer have to worry about life at all!