patrick.net

The turn this country takes is worries me. You get fed up of repubs and vote for dems and they turn out to be repubs on steroids on all the constitutional issues.

The rapper is facing a trial, not prison yet, yes?

"Rapper facing prison for making album"

Headline is a bit overhyped, is it not? It was not MAKING the album that got the rapper prosecuted, but rather using his gang connection as a marketing ploy?

I don't like this case very much by the smell of it, but the reporting also needs to be more accurate.

From what we know, it's hard to see that they have a legitimate case, as far as the constitutional aspect. Are they trolling OBama ? It would be a huge mistake for him to stick his nose into this.

In one sense, the guy doesn't deserve a long prison term for that. On the other hand, maybe a signal needs to be sent that you better not even be close to inciting violence in music, if you know what's good for you. I can see both sides of that.

I have no idea what this refers to.

lostand confused says

vote for dems and they turn out to be repubs on steroids on all the constitutional issues.

gsr says

Liberal version of social conservatism: Rapper facing prison for making album

How the flying fuck is this the fault of liberals? Every liberal would say the First Amendment protects exactly this kind of speech? What, are the prosecutors liberals? Where the fuck did you read that?

Anti-gang laws? Sounds exactly like what a conservative would pass.

Again, conservative scum blaming liberals for what conservative scum pass. And by the way, there are quite a few conservative scumbags in California. Just look at their corrupt prison system making profits off of inmates.

There's no reference to the 2000 CA law mentioned in the article, but I bet that if I looked at the text, I'd expose how absurd it is to apply it to a music album. And if it's not absurd to apply it so, then the law is obviously Unconstitutional and whoever voted in favor of it should be banned for life from political office, and in my opinion, force to serve the life sentence that this man was threatened with. That would keep politicians in line.

Dan8267 says

How the flying fuck is this the fault of liberals? Every liberal would say the First Amendment protects exactly this kind of speech? What, are the prosecutors liberals? Where the fuck did you read that?

Please watch the video. California voters voted to pass this law.

"Obscure 2000 California law that states gang members can be prosecuted if they somehow “benefit” from crimes committed by other gang members."

gsr says

.ABC 10 reports, he and about 14 other gang members are currently facing attempted murder charges stemming from nine local shootings since April 2013.

They're gang members....hello?
The whole gang deserves life in jail. Who cares what murder they are guilty of, and which one they are not. The best case scenario.....other gang members shoot them all. :)

gsr says

Dan8267 says

How the flying fuck is this the fault of liberals? Every liberal would say the First Amendment protects exactly this kind of speech? What, are the prosecutors liberals? Where the fuck did you read that?

Please read the link. California voters voted to pass this law.

"Obscure 2000 California law that states gang members can be prosecuted if they somehow “benefit” from crimes committed by other gang members."

best law ever.

Strategist says

They're gang members....hello?

What crime did he commit?

gsr says

Strategist says

They're gang members....hello?

What crime did he commit?

If you are part of a criminal gang, you are a criminal, sweet and simple. If one commits a murder, they have all committed a murder. Fuck them. Fuck them all.

Strategist says

If you are part of a criminal gang, you are a criminal, sweet and simple. If one commits a murder, they have all committed a murder. Fuck them. Fuck them all.

Well, law should not work that way. You cannot be guilty by association.

Strategist says

gsr says

Strategist says

They're gang members....hello?

What crime did he commit?

If you are part of a criminal gang, you are a criminal, sweet and simple. If one commits a murder, they have all committed a murder. Fuck them. Fuck them all.

Wait till your child is falsely accused of being in some gang and people have the same attitude to your child-as you do to other children.

Now I don't like gangs, but like my civil liberties a lot more. Giving away powers to gubmnt will never work.

gsr says

Well, law should not work that way. You cannot be guilty by association.

True. How do liberals fit into this again ? (your title above)

gsr says

Please watch the video. California voters voted to pass this law.

So every California voter is a liberal, by definition? I think not. Californians also passed a gay marriage ban. You are making false assumptions based on stereotypes with no evidence to back up those assertions. There is nothing liberal about a prosecutor attempting to try a person for publishing a music album or any art, and especially trying to get a life sentence for it.

Strategist says

The whole gang deserves life in jail. Who cares what murder they are guilty of, and which one they are not.

Ah, lock them up regardless of whether or not they committed crimes. Spoken like a true assholes.

If this guy committed murder, then he should be tried for that. However, that is not what this thread is about. It is about the state prosecuting him for free speech and gsr's false and ridiculous accusation that this is somehow the fault of liberals even though it goes against everything liberalism is about.

Strategist says

best law ever.

You haven't even read it. Hell, the text of the law could be used to consider Christians to be a gang and any collection taken by any church could be considered profiting from the crimes of the Inquisition, the Conquistadors, and a multitude of other crimes that allowed Christianity to stamp out other religions and become the dominate one in Europe and America. Without reading the text, you have no idea what the law implies.

Strategist says

If you are part of a criminal gang, you are a criminal, sweet and simple. If one commits a murder, they have all committed a murder.

Shit, that's exactly what I've been saying about cops. And that's because the ones that don't pull the trigger cover up the crimes of the ones that do.

marcus says

True. How do liberals fit into this again ? (your title above)

If Arizona has a law that you don't like, would you not say conservatives passed that law?

gsr says

Well, law should not work that way. You cannot be guilty by association.

You mean like calling a law liberal because it was passed in California? As if no conservative laws have ever been passed in that state?

Dan8267 says

gsr says

Please watch the video. California voters voted to pass this law.

So every California voter is a liberal, by definition? I think not. Californians also passed a gay marriage ban. You are making false assumptions based on stereotypes with no evidence to back up those assertions.

Whenever we discuss a bad state law, we always associate that with the political mindset of the people of the state. This would be equally true for Texas as well.
Also remember, California has direct democracy on many of these laws. They are not just passed by legislators.

gsr says

Strategist says

If you are part of a criminal gang, you are a criminal, sweet and simple. If one commits a murder, they have all committed a murder. Fuck them. Fuck them all.

Well, law should not work that way. You cannot be guilty by association.

lostand confused says

If you are part of a criminal gang, you are a criminal, sweet and simple. If one commits a murder, they have all committed a murder. Fuck them. Fuck them all.

Wait till your child is falsely accused of being in some gang and people have the same attitude to your child-as you do to other children.

Now I don't like gangs, but like my civil liberties a lot more. Giving away powers to gubmnt will never work.

If you are a member of a gang, you are guilty of aiding and abetting every crime the gang commits, even if you did not participate in the actual crime. Proving the guilt of every single gang member is prohibitively expensive on the tax payer. It's also an effective way of discouraging gang membership.
If my kid were to ever join a gang, I would be the one to kill him.

gsr says

Whenever we discuss a bad state law, we always associate that with the political mindset of the people of the state.

Well that's a pretty bad assumption. How about doing some real research instead?

Find out exactly what law the article is referring to. Find a copy of it online. Post the reference. Then find which politicians voted for it and which voted against it. In other words, do something useful instead of having a knee-jerk reaction.

gsr says

marcus says

True. How do liberals fit into this again ? (your title above)

If Arizona has a law that you don't like, would you not say conservatives passed that law?

There are shitloads of laws based on the federal and state levels by both the left and the right that are abhorrent to liberals. Republics, especially rigged ones like the U.S., don't represent the people. They represent big money.

Dan8267 says

Find a copy of it online. Post the reference. Then find which politicians voted for it and which voted against it. In other words, do something useful instead of having a knee-jerk reaction.

Once again, remember California has direct democracy. California voters have been voting for many such laws through ballot propositions. They have voted for a higher gas tax recently in the same way.

gsr says

Once again, remember California has direct democracy. California voters have been voting for many such laws through ballot propositions.

The article does not state that the law was passed as a ballot proposition. In fact, the article implies otherwise as it refers to the law as "obscure". In any case, it is your responsibility to find out what the law is and who passed it before blaming liberals.

Even if it were passed by ballot, that would not mean that liberals voted for it. The ban of gay marriage was passed by ballot.

Not everyone in California is a liberal. In fact, I would say that there are damn few liberals in California. The left is not liberal.

gsr says

What crime did he commit?

Good Lord, it's rap music. That is a crime in and of itself, I'd give him life for that alone. Since its associated with gang crap, I'd give him the death sentence. Rap is to music as babble is to eloquent speeches.

Dan8267 says

The left is not liberal.

Uh, yeah, whatever.

gsr says

Strategist says

If you are part of a criminal gang, you are a criminal, sweet and simple. If one commits a murder, they have all committed a murder. Fuck them. Fuck them all.

Well, law should not work that way. You cannot be guilty by association.

But the law DOES work that way.

I sat on a jury where the law read in such a way that if you commit acts that a reasonable person would believe would lead to further acts, then you are also guilty of those further acts, even if the victim or an associate committed those acts.

It is very difficult to get some people to understand this aspect of criminal law.

As an aside, I've tried to warn people of the socially conservative leaning of supposed liberal politicians in California for a long time including posting here about it. Ranging from efforts by some Santa Monica City Council members to ban smoking in private residences and forcing homes to retrofit for handicap persons to LA city Clowncil members confiscating cars used for prostitution even if the police never arrest or cite the suspect or prostitute(that one was struck down by the CA Supreme Court). This would be one further example as Democrat politicians learned that the pathway to Sacramento was to be friends with law enforcement.

mmmarvel says

Dan8267 says

The left is not liberal.

Uh, yeah, whatever.

With analysis like that, who could argue?

Strategist says

If you are a member of a gang, you are guilty of aiding and abetting every crime the gang commits, even if you did not participate in the actual crime.

Might as well apply this to the G20 while we are at it.

If the law has a problem it should be with the record label or any means of distribution of those tracks. Unless these artists are releasing the tracks on Facebook or Soundcloud on their own.

Then Facebook and Soundcloud should be at fault.

Dan8267 says

mmmarvel says

Dan8267 says

The left is not liberal.

Uh, yeah, whatever.

With analysis like that, who could argue?

What is the difference at least in your case? You seem pretty left to me.
You deride free market capitalism all the time.

Strategist says

If you are a member of a gang, you are guilty of aiding and abetting every crime the gang commits, even if you did not participate in the actual crime. Proving the guilt of every single gang member is prohibitively expensive on the tax payer. It's also an effective way of discouraging gang membership.

If my kid were to ever join a gang, I would be the one to kill him.

You sound like the king of Panem.

I've lived in California since '97 and my experiences and observations here have not been what you would call "liberal." Maybe I misunderstand the definition of the term? Or maybe I live in a different California?

BTW I recall when Tommy Chong was on trial the prosecution used the persona he used in the "Cheech and Chong" movies against him. Does anyone else see a trend?

gsr says

What is the difference at least in your case? You seem pretty left to me.

You deride free market capitalism all the time.

The left proposes banning free speech on campus. Liberals don't. That's one clear difference. I could name a dozen others, but if you don't accept this one, you won't accept any.

As for free market capitalism, it doesn't exist. The creation of corporations has prevented free markets from existing. All markets are rigged by a few powerful controlling players.

Remember the "free" in "free markets" modifies the word markets not the word players. It means the markets are free from being controlled by any player, whether government or corporation. There are NO free markets in the United States.

Furthermore, what you call "derision" is what I call realistic analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of free markets. Free markets work in providing luxuries, not necessities and not infrastructure. Of course, it's an academic argument since there are no free markets.

What I really object to is the use of the term free market to justify lawlessness in business. Regulations are laws. If a person cannot legally murder another person and a corporation is a person, then it follows that a corporation cannot legally murder a person. Yet this happens all the time. A car company does a cost-benefit analysis and decides that not correcting a fatal flaw in their automobiles and paying wrongful death settlements is cheaper and thus better than fixing the problem. So they let people die. Shouldn't this corporation get the death penalty?

The Ford Pinto Case

lthough Ford had access to a new design which would decrease the possibility of the Ford Pinto from exploding, the company chose not to implement the design, which would have cost $11 per car, even though it had done an analysis showing that the new design would result in 180 less deaths. The company defended itself on the grounds that it used the accepted risk/benefit analysis to determine if the monetary costs of making the change were greater than the societal benefit. Based on the numbers Ford used, the cost would have been $137 million versus the $49.5 million price tag put on the deaths, injuries, and car damages, and thus Ford felt justified not implementing the design change.

Companies Put A Value On Your Life

oyota has demonstrated that it too is more concerned with profits than with the people who drive or ride in the vehicles Toyota makes. In an internal memo, Toyota bragged that the company was able to save $100 million by delaying and negotiating a limited recall on their products and by avoiding adding safety devices such as side-curtain airbags and better door locks to some of their vehicles. Toyota also refused to implement a simple, cheap solution to its sudden acceleration problem: A "smart brake" override system, which has been used by other manufacturers for more than a decade and could have been designed and implemented at a cost of less than $1.00 per vehicle.

The GM Recall: Did the auto industry forget the lessons of the Pinto

By 2005, GM had decided against recalling and retooling, with internal documents revealing a cost-benefit analysis reminiscent of Ford's: it would cost less money to pay for the damages in lawsuits than it would to recall and fix the millions of cars with the faulty switch. In 2007 the first death related to the defective ignition switch occurred.

That is what I'm against: lawlessness in business masquerading as the free market.

And it's hardly just automobile companies. Coal power plants literally poison the food you and your family eat with deadly methylmercury toxins. Why the hell should they be allowed to do that?

And why should big farm be allowed to pollute the land and rivers with farm runoff? Why should strip mining companies be allowed to dump their waste into rivers? It's lawlessness.

Dan8267 says

The left proposes banning free speech on campus. Liberals don't. That's one clear difference. I could name a dozen others, but if you don't accept this one, you won't accept any.

As for free market capitalism, it doesn't exist. The creation of corporations has prevented free markets from existing. All markets are rigged by a few powerful controlling players.

TL;DR.
That's a separate topic. People argue that big government enabled creation of big corporations, which is more like fascism.

Remember, GM as a company was not supposed to exist beyond 2008. There were bailed out.

As far as pollution goes, I agree that government has a role to play in the current system, since these resources are owned by the state. But it can be ultimately solved by extending the definition of property rights to ecological resources.