• Hey guys, I just got a report from my ad network that we've gone over 80% of users blocking ads. Please allow our ads to run or think about donating $5.00 a month to remove ads. Ad Free Choices

Issues of a Domestic Nature (READ WARNING ON PAGE 1 BEFORE POSTING)

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

-Akronite-

All-Star
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
8,307
Reaction score
7,213
Points
113
While this is a new bridge that hadn't opened yet, I'm surprised that this sort of thing doesn't happen more often. We need to do something about our country's infrastructure. When I'm driving on I65 around Indianapolis I'm constantly having to dodge enormous potholes.

View: https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/974354306232209409
It's maddening that we haven't gotten a robust infrastructure bill from either party after years of lip-service. How many times have we heard people talk about "nation building at home" only to do NOTHING on this shit.

Oliver is a lefty but I loved his segment on infrastructure below and he talks about how it's a bipartisan failing.


Trump talked big on infrastructure, but the only plans I've seen talked about were about privatization which seems like a terrible route to go. Meanwhile, the Dems introduced a bill (that won't go anywhere) to reduce the tax cuts from the 2017 bill to put $1 trillion into our infrastructure.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/democrats-to-unveil-1-trillion-infrastructure-plan-seek-reversal-of-gop-tax-cuts-to-finance-it/2018/03/07/0de718f6-21c8-11e8-94da-ebf9d112159c_story.html?utm_term=.a4f060ffcea6

The proposal unveiled by Democratic leaders Wednesday would plow just over $1 trillion into a wide range of infrastructure needs, including $140 billion for roads and bridges, $115 billion for water and sewer infrastructure and $50 billion to rebuild schools.

The spending would be offset by clawing back two-thirds of the revenue lost in the Republican tax bill by reinstating a top income tax rate of 39.6 percent, restoring the individual alternative minimum tax, reversing cuts to the estate tax, and raising the corporate income tax from 21 percent to 25 percent.
What really sucks is that I know that if the Dems actually get into power and can actually do something about infrastructure, they'll ignore it just like they did before and just like the GOP is now.
 

MediumBaller

All-Star
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
6,524
Reaction score
7,063
Points
113
Missouri defends 241-year prison sentence for 16-year-old

Missouri is defending a prison sentence for a man who committed robbery and other crimes on a single day when he was 16 and now isn't eligible for parole until he's 112 years old.

State Attorney General Josh Hawley says in a U.S. Supreme Court filing that defendant Bobby Bostic's 241-year sentence for 18 crimes does not violate the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Hawley says a 2010 Supreme Court's ruling that outlawed life sentences for people under 18 who didn't kill anyone applies only to a sentence for one crime.

The former St. Louis judge who sentenced Bostic disagrees. She now believes the term is unjust and is backing Bostic's high-court appeal. There's no timetable for when the justices will decide whether to hear his case.

Now 39, Bostic has been in prison for more than 20 years.

State and federal courts around the country have ruled differently about whether young people convicted of crimes can be sentenced to prison for terms that the American Civil Liberties Union, representing Bostic, said "exceed their life expectancy."

The retired judge, Evelyn Baker, is among more than 100 current and former judges, prosecutors and law enforcement officers who are calling on the Supreme Court to throw out the sentence as grossly unfair. Among those supporting Bostic are former acting U.S. Attorney General Sally Yates, former Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr, and former Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr.

In December 1995, Bostic and 18-year-old Donald Hutson robbed a group of six people who were delivering Christmas presents for the needy, the ACLU said in its appeal on Bostic's behalf.
They fired a gun at two victims, grazing one and missing the other, Hawley said in Missouri's brief. The robbers then carjacked a woman and Hutson robbed and fondled her before releasing her, according to the ACLU's brief. The two men threw the guns in a river and used the money to buy marijuana.

Hutson took a plea deal and got 30 years. Bostic went to trial and lost.

At Bostic's sentencing, Baker said, "You made your choice. You're gonna have to live with your choice, and you're gonna die with your choice because, Bobby Bostic, you will die in the Department of Corrections."

Later, she said, "I feel nothing for you. I feel the same thing for you that you apparently felt for those victims and you feel for your family."

But in an essay published in the Washington Post in February, Baker wrote, "Scientists have discovered so much about brain development in the more than 20 years since I sentenced Bostic. What I learned too late is that young people's brains are not static; they are in the process of maturing."

The Supreme Court has used essentially the same reasoning in barring life sentences for juveniles who didn't kill anyone and in throwing out mandatory life terms for people who kill before they turn 18.

The ACLU wants the court to apply the 2010 ruling to Bostic.

But Hawley, in the state's brief filed Thursday, said there are several reasons the high court should not disturb the Missouri court rulings upholding the sentence. Among them was that the 2010 Supreme Court ruling doesn't apply to Bostic because he "was sentenced to multiple, consecutive terms in prison for committing multiple crimes, and who will be eligible for parole in great old age."

Hawley is seeking the Republican nomination to take on Democratic U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill in one of the nation's most closely watched races this year.
I figured sentencing reform would fall under "domestic issues". 241 years is so extreme. especially for what this man did when he was 16 years old. What he did was awful, of course, but there are people who got far less time for doing far worse things.
 

gourimoko

Fighting the good fight!
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
39,845
Reaction score
53,639
Points
148
Missouri defends 241-year prison sentence for 16-year-old

Missouri is defending a prison sentence for a man who committed robbery and other crimes on a single day when he was 16 and now isn't eligible for parole until he's 112 years old.

State Attorney General Josh Hawley says in a U.S. Supreme Court filing that defendant Bobby Bostic's 241-year sentence for 18 crimes does not violate the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Hawley says a 2010 Supreme Court's ruling that outlawed life sentences for people under 18 who didn't kill anyone applies only to a sentence for one crime.

The former St. Louis judge who sentenced Bostic disagrees. She now believes the term is unjust and is backing Bostic's high-court appeal. There's no timetable for when the justices will decide whether to hear his case.

Now 39, Bostic has been in prison for more than 20 years.

State and federal courts around the country have ruled differently about whether young people convicted of crimes can be sentenced to prison for terms that the American Civil Liberties Union, representing Bostic, said "exceed their life expectancy."

The retired judge, Evelyn Baker, is among more than 100 current and former judges, prosecutors and law enforcement officers who are calling on the Supreme Court to throw out the sentence as grossly unfair. Among those supporting Bostic are former acting U.S. Attorney General Sally Yates, former Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr, and former Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr.

In December 1995, Bostic and 18-year-old Donald Hutson robbed a group of six people who were delivering Christmas presents for the needy, the ACLU said in its appeal on Bostic's behalf.
They fired a gun at two victims, grazing one and missing the other, Hawley said in Missouri's brief. The robbers then carjacked a woman and Hutson robbed and fondled her before releasing her, according to the ACLU's brief. The two men threw the guns in a river and used the money to buy marijuana.

Hutson took a plea deal and got 30 years. Bostic went to trial and lost.

At Bostic's sentencing, Baker said, "You made your choice. You're gonna have to live with your choice, and you're gonna die with your choice because, Bobby Bostic, you will die in the Department of Corrections."

Later, she said, "I feel nothing for you. I feel the same thing for you that you apparently felt for those victims and you feel for your family."

But in an essay published in the Washington Post in February, Baker wrote, "Scientists have discovered so much about brain development in the more than 20 years since I sentenced Bostic. What I learned too late is that young people's brains are not static; they are in the process of maturing."

The Supreme Court has used essentially the same reasoning in barring life sentences for juveniles who didn't kill anyone and in throwing out mandatory life terms for people who kill before they turn 18.

The ACLU wants the court to apply the 2010 ruling to Bostic.

But Hawley, in the state's brief filed Thursday, said there are several reasons the high court should not disturb the Missouri court rulings upholding the sentence. Among them was that the 2010 Supreme Court ruling doesn't apply to Bostic because he "was sentenced to multiple, consecutive terms in prison for committing multiple crimes, and who will be eligible for parole in great old age."

Hawley is seeking the Republican nomination to take on Democratic U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill in one of the nation's most closely watched races this year.
I figured sentencing reform would fall under "domestic issues". 241 years is so extreme. especially for what this man did when he was 16 years old. What he did was awful, of course, but there are people who got far less time for doing far worse things.
I agree. I'm very much against life-without-parole sentences for minors.
 

Jack Brickman

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
30,019
Reaction score
35,700
Points
148
I agree. I'm very much against life-without-parole sentences for minors.
When I saw a 241 year prison sentence, I assumed that what the kid did would have been a hell of a lot worse than what he actually did. Not to defend what he did, but does what basically amounts to armed robbery really justify a 241 year prison sentence? That seems insane to me.
 

AZ_

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
37,338
Reaction score
40,706
Points
148
The first few targeted minorities, I wonder if this is the same.
 

MediumBaller

All-Star
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
6,524
Reaction score
7,063
Points
113

King Stannis

Maréchal d'Empire
Administrator
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
14,737
Reaction score
20,297
Points
135
There has been a string of bombings in Austin, Texas over the past few weeks. I haven't seen a lot in the news about them but have seen a few things on Twitter.

View: https://twitter.com/atcems/status/975548746707750913?s=21
Just doing an initial IPB, but dude is too busy too soon.

His attacks being limited to this particular city, and, though I have not looked at a list of the targeted people, I am trending toward this not being the work of a the typical Austin hippie. The opposite actually.

But, the ring is closing in on him as materials needed to make explosives are tracked. Although... small bombs means little need for large amounts of nitrates which are the primary means of detection.

Edit: The most recent attack did not occur in a minority neighborhood. Looking more into this, the first two targets were very specific. Two black men part of the same church. The third victim an elderly hispanic woman. Members of the same church means this is not random. The bomber knew those guys.
 
Last edited:

Hurl Bruce

Sexual Tyrannosaurus
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
7,741
Reaction score
7,087
Points
113

King Stannis

Maréchal d'Empire
Administrator
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
14,737
Reaction score
20,297
Points
135
View: https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/976115647779254273


I didn't see the entire original video, just these spliced clips from the whole one. I am making the assumption that these are in order.

We're going to solve the opioid crisis through commercials and death sentences.

Love how he probably puzzles everyone with the lower the prices of drugs comment.
There is a lot to unpack from the official proposal so:

1) Death penalty won’t fly. 8th Amendment and all. Dude is getting bad advice from nut jobs.

2) Funding for treatment is good. They should actually focus on this.

3) Better monitoring of Rxs is good.

4) Anti-opioid commercials? Yeah, great. The 80s are back. Didn’t work then, won’t work now. But here is a sweet cut from the 80s anyway to get everyone in the mood:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3j2NYZ8FKs
 

MediumBaller

All-Star
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
6,524
Reaction score
7,063
Points
113
I'd love to see what the definition of terrorist is now. Does it have to be of a certain religion?

View: https://twitter.com/ReutersUS/status/976123383376154625
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism

We don't know who is doing the bombings or what their motivation is. We could debate whether or not someone bombing people falls under the umbrella of "terrorism" regardless of why they're doing it, but it could very well be the case that there are no links to terrorism right now.
 

Radio

Top