OPP Newsletter

Loki Loc: Georgia

I should perhaps clarify something before I begin: There may be a misunderstanding or confusion given the content of my last post. I DO NOT advocate giving food stamps to convicted murderers, rapists, and drug offenders. The title of the last post simply referred to "violent offenders." This would be a kind of "catch all" which varied widely from state to state. Specific crimes, with the same criteria, are different. I believe strongly in drug testing. alcohol screens, and a work requirement for the able bodied. The current system is flawed and arbitrary and unfair, giving benefits to those who are ineligible, (or should be), while denying them to some who could really use them. I always thought they were intended to be, in most cases, temporary help, anyway, not a career choice. Drug and alcohol testing, and a work requirement for the able bodied should be mandatory, along with an overhaul which eliminates the billions of dollars of waste that are incurred by giving benefits to i*****l a***ns who s**m the system. If only truly needy American citizens with no record of murder or rape, received these benefits, and if the substance testing and work requirements were instituted, it would save hundreds of billions of dollars. Concerning the complaint that b****s would be "unfairly" impacted, (not to mention i******s): Perhaps if they did not commit these crimes far out of proportion to their numbers, they would not be so heavily impacted. (Before you shout "r****m," Google DOJ crime statistics by race; I am not making this up, these facts are obtained from the ERIC HOLDER DOJ, hardly a stronghold of the KKK).

snowbear37 Loc: MA.

I guess the opening gambit always has to be "the race card" because it seems to work every time. Apparently, people like Eric Holder, Condolezza Rice, Barak Obama, et al doesn't prove that if you want to succeed badly enough, you can. No matter what color your skin is.

LAwrence

What are the left saying? Only b****scommit crimes?

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

SO? Deem it r****t, but DO IT! These people are not citizens, they are the enemies of citizens. They have not earned the title of citizen. They should not be deemed citizens when handing out freebies that other people work for. Do NOT forget that receiving freebies IS NOT A RIGHT.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

The real reason so much welfare goes to so many has little to do with anything more than providing job security to social workers. The network of drones in social work at the federal, state and local levels cost more than the various benefits they hand out, and the more people in the system the more social workers are needed to administer the programs - and the more social workers the more managers, etc.

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unless I am sadly mistaken, the higher ups in various agencies, bureaus, etc get pay raises based on how many work under them; hence everyone of them is working full time gaining more and more workers beneath them. Insane.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Well, yes, insane but it seems to be working for them and that is all they care about.

mmccarty12 Loc: Zionsville, Indiana

What I am about to say will irk some people and I want to say this:
Before you go ballistic, I am only referring to one-time criminals. Those who are recidivists, screw 'em, screw 'em hard, and then throw away the key to the cell into which they are thrown. Add to that I like a two strikes rule, not three.

Having said that, unfortunately, here is a case where I have to disagree with the majority here. A criminal is a person charged, convicted and sentenced for committing a crime. And old saying goes something like this, "do the crime, do the time". Unfortunately in this country, ex-convicts are still in the sentence phase years after they have done their time. Few, if any, ever get passes on their past, especially if they commit a felony offense. Why should a person, charged, convicted, sentenced and having served their time be ineligible for the benefits available to all citizens? They have done the time, if they have not committed another crime, but they have learned from their experience, and decided to obey the laws of society, they should no longer be punished. BUT, they should only be available again after they have served the entirety of their sentence.

As an example of a case in which a one-time felon got screwed, in my opinion, I give you a case from my state where a man was trying to obtain a gaming license to work at a casino as a part-time table games dealer after retirement. When he was 18, he committed armed robbery. He was caught, charged, convicted and sentenced to 5 years. He was out in 2 years and spent the remainder on probation. He cleaned up his act, found regular employment while on probation (someone gave him a chance) and stayed at the job for over 30 years. After he retired, he got bored and decided to apply for a gaming license. He applied and was rejected because of that conviction, for which he did his time and kept his nose clean. In my opinion, he was wrongfully denied.

Our justice system is supposed to punish criminals according to the law for a specified time period. Unfortunately, a criminal is punished for the entirety of his or her life if they are a felon. I do not like to use the word "fair" because of the left taking it over as part of their mantra, but I ask you, is it fair to punish a person for the entirety of their lives because of a one-time mistake.

As for the race card, maybe paying attention to something like this will help.
http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-2511-1.html
The above is just one piece that will tell you why an overwhelming majority of crimes are committed by b****s. Low education and low job prospects because of low education are just two points not in their favor. How many of those schools slated for closure in Chicago are 'ghetto' schools?

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

No, I can't speak for others, but what you say doesn't irk me at all. I understand where you are coming from, or at least believe I do.

I still stick to my "no", though, because we KNOW he, at least once, did not have the strength or the integrity to refrain from crime. I believe you that he has cleaned up, but I totally understand people's reluctance to not hire - especially in a place where money is handled. It is unfortunate, but the law provides for the LEGAL punishment. Society provides its own punishment. The fact is that most people, I believe, don't like criminals and it takes a great leap of faith to trust that they are reformed. He should not have committed the crime, ergo the punishment is his to bear with no one else to blame even when people don't trust him.

You're right. It isn't fair. Lots of things in my life haven't been fair, and I am no criminal. Lots of things in everyone's life aren't fair.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

Where or where to begin. Okay, you may be (insert picture of Aunti shuttering as she says) correct. Our confederate banjojack has said this may be to broad a brush effort. With the Feds, it is either throw out some new edict and pray for the best or spend vast amounts of money to do studies or do both.

My response to your last sentence would be less then appropriate and I have reconsidered putting forth an answer.

USpatriot77 Loc: USA

Why not? They already get taxpayer educations in prison, free healthcare, do not pay taxes, get job retraining in prison, so why not? The taxpayers are already obligated for this, why not add to their tax burden? After all, isn't America a Socialist country now?
Hasn't POTUS already pit them in the front of the line for everything else? Don't they already have more rights and benefits than their victims?

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

This may well be indirectly off topic; however, there have been other forums which turned into a free wheeling discussion.

These incarcerated individuals supposedly receive education. The question becomes does that education t***slate to useable job sk**ls upon release? You might well ask me what we should teach them. I will gladly answer. Several decades ago a co-workers father was employed by a state prison. His job was in the wood working shop training prisoners to repair, refinish and build wood furniture. To further their experience and learning, a citizen could take a piece of furniture to the prison and have it refinished, repaired, copied, etc. Sitting in my home are three pieces of furniture which were beautifully repaired and refinished. The charge to me was the cost of the materials used and a small compensation to the prisoner for his work. One piece was purchased at a yard sale for $5, reglued and refinished for $20 and appraised recently at $175. The appraiser actually commented on the excellent work done by the wood worker. This program provided a useful sk**l leading to gainful employment. Rather then prisoners watching TV, exercising in a gym at our expense, real programs providing real training in real work sk**ls are needed. Would it cost money? Yes. Does it not cost us for cable, exercise equipment in the gyms and computers? Yes. Do we really need to provide them with reality TV programs? NO!

mmccarty12 Loc: Zionsville, Indiana

USpatriot77, I believe you think all of these individuals are l***hes. In some, but not all cases, I agree with you. Prison is supposed to be a place of punishment, but why not introduce some rehabilitation into the mix. Allowing them the chance to integrate back into society and not be a criminal is a better product of the prison system then putting them in, make them break rocks all day and then release them when their time is up. Would you rather have someone who committed a crime exit prison with the necessary ability to reintegrate into society, who realizes the error(s) of his/her ways and wants to work within society? Or would you want someone coming out of prison with a bad attitude, a bad taste in their mouth and decide society did nothing for them, so society's rules and laws do not apply, only to become a prisoner again?

I agree, take away the TV and the free health equipment. But I also agree they need a chance to get educated(not college level, do that on their own dime after they are out) and to receive training in a trade sk**l.

I h**e quoting the Bible, but I believe this apropos. Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime. Do not make them dependent, but give them a chance.

I have worked in the past with several ex-cons. Then I mistrusted them and their intentions. Now, in many cases, I would rather work with, even for, an ex-con than some of the people I have worked with since.

Those who make an effort to rehabilitate and reintegrate should be allowed the same benefits. Those who do not, what can you do?

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

You just reminded me of my favorite ex-con friend. He went to prison because he took the heat for something his father-in-law and wife did. Anyway I never thought of him as an ex-con at any time.

One of my funniest experiences in this long lifetime was about him. One morning a couple of union type teachers told me that they didn't think I should be around an ex-con since I was a teacher. I just rated back and said that maybe they were smart enough to realize that we usually associate with people we really like and seldom do so with those we don't like so well. After giving them a bit to soak that in I reminded them that I was never around them if it could be avoided. They nearly tore the door off the hinges getting out of the room.