XPost: alt.lawyers, utexas.law, talk.politics.guns 
 XPost: alt.prisons, alt.current-events.usa, alt.politics.media 
 XPost: alt.law-enforcement, talk.politics.drugs 
 From: DEMI_GOD_@SHAW.CA 
  
 "Shit-for-brain"  wrote 
 news:40756a7c.125504554@newsgroups.bellsouth.net... 
 > 
 > "_ G O D _"  wrote: 
 > 
 > > 
 > >"Shit-for-brain"  wrote 
 > >news:40735db1.27208575@newsgroups.bellsouth.net... 
 > >> 
 > >> "_ G O D _"  wrote: 
 > >> 
 > >> >"Angie"  wrote 
 > >> >news:16839-4072D4FF-550@storefull-3238.bay.webtv.net... 
 > >> >> 
 > >> >> .....  Why should tax payers have to give free medical coverage to 
 > >> >> people who committed a crime and are sitting in custody?  It's not 
 the 
 > >> >> tax payers' fault that Joe or Jane Inmate committed the crime, why 
 > >> >> should the tax payers be punished with the bill?  Many Americans 
 don't 
 > >> >> have health insurance to pay their own medical but we're supposed to 
 > >> >> give free care to those who can't follow the law?  Inmates DO get the 
 > >> >> basic 3--but they should be treated like those outside with  regards 
 to 
 > >> >> medical--if you can't cover the cost you can't get it.  Seems fair to 
 > >> >> the average non-law-breaking person.... 
 > >> > 
 > >> > 
 > >> >Angry, we're certainly being in concord in our views toward the 
 > >> >perspective you have pictured and clearly emphasized here.... 
 > >> >I would also add to your ranting few more rants of similar nature. 
 > >> >Why should convicted criminals and those who aren't, or weren't 
 > >> >convicted yet, should be held in "public custody" and at extremely 
 > >> >exaggerated costs to the tax payers? Couldn't they stay locked 
 > >> >at their own residence, and pay from their own pockets, if chosen 
 > >> >to be in custody of others? 
 > >> 
 > >> Hey, clueless,  many of them do.  Many more cannot be trusted 
 > >> to do so and are locked up.  It's up to the judge to decide on this. 
 > >> Remember, he's got to take into account that they've already 
 > >> broken the law once. 
 > > 
 > >Shithead, since you have such uncanny ability to twist a point 
 > >when engaging in  dialogue, I guess, I should let you practice 
 > >it still here.... Although I must mention it that every time, when 
 > >someone is being locked up, there is another meter is being 
 > >also turned on. While the meter is running, it may be makes it 
 > >feel good for the COck-suckers, but it surely counting against 
 > >the tax-payers' accounts and their welfare.... 
 > 
 > I point out that we already do have bail and house arrest 
 > (apparently you forgot about these things) and you reply with this 
 > meaningless dribble about meters.  Can't you be clear? 
  
 Jerkoff, how exactly house arrests and bails are addressing the 
 crime? Just like the prisons and the rests of the institutions of the 
 incarceration industry, they are completely toothless in addressing 
 the ongoing crime rate. Neither they prevent any crime, but more 
 likely to promote it, at additional expense to law-abiding taxpayers. 
  
 > > 
 > >> >Why should law-abiding citizens lose 
 > >> >their livelihoods to benefit the slaves of the incarceration industry? 
 > >> 
 > >> I've got news for you, dummy.  It costs about 1/6th as much 
 > >> (there is no profit) to let a criminal do house arrest.    So trying 
 > >> to claim that this is done to exploit the poor widdle convict merely 
 > >> shows your lack of knowledge. 
 > > 
 > >You may have attempted to twist the fact's about 180 degrees 
 > >off its face, but it is still recognizable, and very much fixable.... 
 > 
 > Ummm, fact twisting is doing things like claiming that UDHR is legally 
 > binding.  I'm just stating a fact.  You are doing all of the twisting. 
  
 UDHR is a landmark document of the United Nations Organization 
 and the whole basis of for its existence. So, if it is not valid, then why 
 was it created and acknowledged by all of the nations in the world? 
  
 I wasn't saying a word about the UDHR, but it's so nice of you to bring 
 it up, because its meaning is quite important and relevant to the subject. 
  
 > >You see, when the livelihoods of a law-abiding citizens are being 
 > >taken away from them, "just for the sake of occupying the prisoners" 
 > >with it, the law-abiding citizens' hopes for better life, and their self 
 > >esteem are suffering, along with their families, who cannot afford 
 > >to buy food, to eat.... 
 > 
 > Prisoners on house arrest do not lose their livelihoods.  They 
 > continue to work or go to school or whatever. 
  
 People who live in their houses aren't prisoners, Jerkoff.... So, what 
 exactly is stopping them from continuing to abuse the rights of people 
 whom convicted felons have victimized previously (over and again)? 
  
 > >> Hell, the reason why our prisoners don't make car plates is 
 > >> that that it can be done cheaper by private enterprise.  Get 
 > >> it through your head that there IS no incarceration industry. 
  
 Why "prisoners' not making car plates" should go through my 
 head, if I wasn't talking about it and it's the last thing on my mind? 
  
 > >You may deny existence as much as you want, Shithead, but it 
 > >won't help a bit to get rid of it, unless prisons are gone completely, 
 > >alone with all of the institutions of the incarceration industry.... 
 > 
 > Big, empty words from someone who knows  nothing of which he speaks. 
  
 I'm not sure what standards you use for word-measuring system, but 
 it's their meaning that should be counted, not the size, Shithead.... 
  
 > >> >Why those who work behind the prison walls and fences should 
 > >> >be allowed to unfair competition with those on the outside of those 
 > >> >walls, by not being fairly paid for their labor, or by not paid at all? 
 > >> 
 > >> If the prison can't even beat private enterprise in the cost of making 
 > >> car tags, what the hell makes you think that a.) there is unfair 
 > >> competition and b.) that the poor widdle convicts are being exploited 
 > >> for their labor. 
 > > 
 > >You know, Shithead, prisons are alive and well even on the stock 
 > >markets, where you can find them under "corrections. 
 > 
 > The explanation for that was given below. 
  
 What explanation? I didn't see it neither above, nor below.... 
  
 > > And alot of 
 > >the public money is being wasted only to make profits on their stocks 
 > >for their very enterprising holders.... 
 > 
 > This, sadly, is true. 
  
 You admitting it doesn't give a shit to fix this problem, Shit-for-brain.... 
  
 > >To tell you a secret, anyone with 
 > >money to by those stocks won't need to have a job ever again! 
 > 
 > And this, sadly, is the deluded ravings of an idiot. 
  
 Idiots could be considered also those who do not take advantage 
 of secured investments in "correction" and won't use an opportunity 
 of living off high profit dividends form their investments... 
  
 > >> >Why should people who WORK for their living should benefit those 
  
 [continued in next message] 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)