Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
That shouldn't take long.
Give him another sentence and I bet he proves it himself!
If immortality technology existed, but only the rich could purchase it . . .
- Thread starter BRUTALITOPS
- Start date
Give him another sentence and I bet he proves it himself!
SmarterthanYou
rebel
this is outright bullshit. if that were truly the case, then maybe you can explain concealed handgun license owners in NY and Cali and why only the wealthy, famous, or politically connected seem to get them while the average joe does not.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I can't explain it, I don't know the details or specifics, but I'll put $1,000 up right now, and BET YOU the law does not allow something for wealthy people which is not allowed for others.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
and this is why so few individuals can take you seriously when you try to declare that 'conservatives' follow the constitution. you talk real big about the letter of the law and are ready to berate liberals for perverting the 'letter of the law' for liberal purposes, but appear to be in complete denial when it happens that way against your talking points of the law.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Again, the LAW is the same for wealthy people as it is for poor people. There is no extra legal benefit for being wealthy. The fact that a wealthy person can afford to hire smarter lawyers, has nothing to do with the rule of law. The fact that a poor person can't afford to hire a smart lawyer, has nothing to do with the rule of law.
Some people shop at the very same grocery store as I do, but they pay considerably less for their groceries. Now, the store doesn't sell groceries less to some people based on wealth. What happens is, some people clip coupons and bring them to the store when they shop, therefore, they end up paying less for their groceries? Is this unfair? Am I being discriminated against because of my wealth or lack thereof? Of course not, there is only one price tag on the product. Some people have an advantage (in EVERYTHING) because they make smarter choices.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
The rule of law in North Korea is exactly the same for everyone. Everyone, regardless of party connections or their families political history, is equally subject to the Kim Jong Un's arbitrary caprice, no exceptions.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
While the LAW may be the same, the application/enforcement of the law most certainly benefits the wealthy (not to mention white people in general).
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
I see you finally put down the bottle.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I've told you numerous times, the whole "follow the constitution" argument rests on individual interpretation of what the constitution says. We can have that argument all over again, and I can mount another chunk of your ass on my wall of fame, because you'll be PWNED again, or we can stick to the topic of the thread. I suggest sticking to the topic of the thread.
I will state this one more time for the retarded: The LAW is NOT determined on the basis of wealth or status. You can't cite a single example of a law which applies itself differently based on an individual's status or wealth. The ONLY thing you can moan about, is the fact that some people can hire smarter and more expensive lawyers, but again... this doesn't change the rule of law. Perhaps there are lawyers who poor people simply can't afford to hire, they still have no bearing on how the law is applied or what the law says. The judge is simply not going to say, "You have the more expensive lawyer, therefore, you win the case!" Juries aren't going to deliberate on the status of your wealth before making their ruling, it has absolutely nothing to do with how the law is applied. The only "advantage" the smart and expensive lawyer has, is his knowledge and understanding of the law itself, and how it applies in your case. That could be a definite advantage for you in court, which is why he commands a high rate, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the law or your status of wealth.
If we are playing poker, and I am beating your ass like I do in debate, big fat stacks of cash all around me while you are trying to pawn your watch to stay in the game... I have played by the rules the whole game, I was just smarter than you at playing the game.... is it because I have fat stacks? We play the hand we're dealt and I beat you again... is that because the rules of poker are giving me an unfair advantage due to my fat stacks? THAT is the argument you seem to be making here, and it FAILS!
SmarterthanYou
rebel
thank you for showing your inability to grasp actual reality.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I see you slammed the rest of it when I wasn't looking.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Not really, unless it is happening illegally. I'm on record, I stand firmly against illegality regarding the law and how it's applied, if this is going on, we need to send folks to prison for it. If judges and juries are paid off by rich people, they need to go to jail for that. THE LAW is not applied or enforced according to a person's wealth status. I've seen NO LAW which stipulates a difference between rich or poor people, and I would be staunchly opposed to such a law.
What you are doing is, taking the statistical results of cases regarding the law, and making a determination based on this. In the poker analogy, you are looking at my fat stacks and assuming I have an advantage over someone, because I have obviously been winning. The FACT of the matter is, I have no advantage, I am just smarter and better at playing the game, I know and understand the game and rules better than my opponent, and that is why I have been winning. It has nothing to do with my wealth or the rules of poker.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Touche
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
(Shhh.... he doesn't know we did belly shots!
Gross
Where do you live? Disneyland?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Wow, what to do with such a reasoned and well-thought-out rebuttal?
Uhm, no... I live in America, where our laws and courts aren't established on the basis of wealth or status.
Where do you live? ...16th Century Europe?
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
It has a great deal to do with the laws practical effect. The law doesn't live in some vacuum utterly removed from human decisions. In a realistic sense, it is a product of individual judgments in the society in which it happens to exist in. We could use your same dumb argument to justify anything.
The LAW is the same whether or not judges are bribed. Who cares if a wealthy person can afford to bribe more? That has nothing to do with the rule of law. The fact that a poor person can't afford to bribe as much, has nothing to do with the rule of law.
The LAW is the same for mobsters as it is for normal people. There is no extra legal benefit for threatening the jurors. The fact that a mobster sent a message to each and every juror that they had better watch their children closely, has nothing to do with the rule of law. The fact that a normal person has no criminal underground capable of carrying out such a threat, and thus, such a threat would seem hollow and likely wouldn't work, has nothing to do with the rule of law. They should've built their underground criminal network better, it's their fault, not the mobsters. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
The LAW is the same for CPC members as it is for non-party members. There is no extra legal benefit for being a member of the Communist Party of China. Who cares if they are tried in their own courts and by fellow members of the Communist party? That has nothing to do with the rule of law. The fact that a non-party member chose not to join the party, and thus doesn't have the privileges, rights, that a Party member is entitled to under the law, nor the personal connections with those judging him/her that would prove very fruitful in the outcome of the trial, has nothing to do with the rule of law. Everyone has an equal right to be judged in one fashion should they be a member of the Communist party, and in another should they not.
The LAW is the same whether or not the judge can actually read or understand the law and just declares everyone who's black guilty. There is no extra legal benefit for being white. The fact that a white person happens to be of the race said judge happens to favor, has nothing to do with the rule of law. The fact that a black person just happens to displease said judge, who is, again, not capable of reading or understanding the law and pretty much doesn't take it into account when making his decisions, has nothing to do with the rule of law. The laws the same either way, isn't it? It's being equally ignored, for both people.
They are established that way, but it is exactly the way they are conducted. You live in a bubble if you don't see this. It isn't our rich who mostly occupy our prisons, lthough they comitted crimes, they are much more likely, because of their high lawyers to see less prison time for their crimes.
Last edited:
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
It doesn't change the law, it does change the rule of law. A law is some words on a scrap of paper. I can write a few laws down right now, if you wish. The rule of law involves those words on said scrap being interpreted by someone and carried into practice. The rule of these laws I've just written down consists of them being totally ignored. The rule of a law in a system where the likelihood of a beneficial judgement relies only on the words on said piece of paper and the evidence for their side, and a system in which people can tilt the likelihood of a beneficial judgement in their favor by spending more on lawyers, is very different.
An advantage does not have to be absolute for it to exist. Taking steroids won't cause the judges in a competition to walk up to me and say "You took steroids, therefore, you win this competition!" Does it have any unfair bearing on the result of the competition? Yes.
The judges aren't going to deliberate on how much steroids I took before making their decision, it has absolutely nothing to do with the outcome.
So having a person legally defending me who is unknowledgable in the law, has little understanding of the law itself, or how it applies in my case, makes no difference on how the law is applied?
Also, who could just be a smooth talking piece of shit. In fact, that's usually the case. "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!" Oh, that lawyers demonstrated so much of his understanding and knowledge of the law itself that day!
So the fact that the law allows me to tilt the likelihood of it being applied in my favor by having a more expensive lawyer, which is only possible if I have enough money, has absolutely nothing to do with the law or the status of my wealth?
What is the ideal outcome of a game of poker? That one person wins who played better.
What is the ideal of a trial? That one person wins or loses, based on how true their case is to the law given the evidence. Since this is a subjective ideal (unlike a game of poker), we can only approximate it, and our current method of approximation involves having two people knowledgeable of the law making the argument for and against such a case. This is only a good approximation so long as it tends to match with the goals of being true to the law given the evidence. If, however, you buy such individuals on the market, and some people can afford better defenders than others, which tilts the outcome of the case in their favor, then the system begins to less and less closely approximate being true to the law given the evidence and more and more approximates being true to whoever has the most money. This is not rocket science, dixie. This is common sense.