Reply With Quote
Imagine that.
Could Wal-Mart receive the death penalty?
A decidedly non-populist approach to sentence reduction: Corporate fatcats first
Upon learning that the U.S. Sentencing Commission issued a 78-page do ent suggesting amendments to sentencing guidelines to reduce sentences and increase use of alternatives to incarceration for corporate crime, I have two immediate thoughts: 1) That's probably a reasonable idea, but 2) Why should crimes committed by corporations be first in line for reduction instead of crimes that apply to average people?
Drug sentences are also too high, but the priority is keeping the Wall Street guys out of prison? First things first, I guess.
Imagine that.
Could Wal-Mart receive the death penalty?
200 years from now, there could still be a Wal-Mart. I'd say the chances are against it.
I bet Wal-Mart outlasts the USA.
We can execute person, but can't execute corps?
the corp = person is total insanity.
Just another way the oligarchy defends its hegemony and privileges over citizens.
And assholes here STILL give corps the benefit of the doubt.
American sovereignty faces a more serious threat from Cobra Commander's beloved Fortune 500 than it does from some kind of hazy socialist/commie/UN/NWO conspiracy.
Wall Street guys come from a different class of people that your average drug runner/dealer.
, the guys drafting these laws and making these recommendations probably went to school with guys who have committed white collar crime. They're probably thinking "That could have been me." Do you think they relate to the drug-running Mexican bringing coke across the border in a trailer carrying grapefruit?
What are the chances that Winehole actually read the do ent he's lambasting? I say 0%, the man is allergic to read more than posts or 1 page articles.
What are the chances that he'll actually acknowledge that? I say bellow 0%, he'll probably go on endless one-liner posts stating enigmatic, bizarre stuff, mad because I called him out.
In Winehole's very particular "reading is for gays" world:
Reality:Drug sentences are also too high, but the priority is keeping the Wall Street guys out of prison? First things first, I guess.Page 3. And the first two have the index and the le, so it's actually like the first page with text!! How the is this possible?!??!? How can anyone have this kind of chupatz? Do you care to explain why people should trust anything you say, Winehole? I've learnt a long time ago, since I found you making totally false, misleading, statements about the conclusions of the UN in Iraq re: WMD what your MO is, but I'm still curious how do your mind processes this? You don't mind lying left and right? You think it's unimportant? It's in the name of a bigger cause?
2010 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES, POLICY
STATEMENTS, AND OFFICIAL COMMENTARY
1. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: ALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION
Synopsis of Proposed Amendment: In September 2009, the Commission indicated that one of its policy priorities would be continued study of alternatives to incarceration, including consideration of any potential changes to the zones incorporated in the Sentencing Table in Chapter Five and/or other changes to the guidelines that might be appropriate in light of the information obtained from that study.
The proposed amendment contains two parts (A and B). The Commission is considering whether to promulgate either or both of these parts, as they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Part A expands the authority of the court to impose an alternative to incarceration for drug offenders who need treatment for drug addiction and who meet certain criteria. This part does so by creating a new guideline, §5C1.3, that provides the court with authority under the guidelines to impose a sentence of
probation (with a requirement that the offender participate in a [residential] treatment program) rather than a sentence of imprisonment, without regard to the applicable Zone of the Sentencing Table. To use this authority, the court must find that the drug offender has demonstrated a willingness to participate in a
substance abuse treatment program and [will likely benefit from such a program][that participation in such a program will likely address the defendant's need for substance abuse treatment], and the court must impose a condition of probation that requires the defendant to participate in a [residential] substance abuse treatment program.
And there's no suggestion about to reduce sentences and increase use of alternatives to incarceration for corporate crime. None. Zero. That stuff was just made out of thin air. Invented. The recommendations are about how to deal with corporations whose employees have been convicted of white collar crimes - namely the level of cooperation they're obliged to the DoJ. But it's not about the criminals going to jail, it's about the fines that corporations and the disclosure requirements corporations may face or not accordingly to their level of comply to the guidelines (pp 32-40). And it doesn't even change the regime in their favour.
And as someone with half a brain would know, this is marginally about Wall Street companies - but mostly about Main Street companies - who do you think that are the companies whose prosecutions are overseen by judges?
Another Winehole vintage moment - "reading is overrated, truth is overrated, just parrot stuff".
Last edited by mogrovejo; 02-02-2010 at 07:52 PM.
mobastiato's arguments in a nuts .
What was that about the sophistication of your arguments, again?
Or he may try to ignore the whole thread and send someone else to do the service for him.What are the chances that he'll actually acknowledge that? I say bellow 0%, he'll probably go on endless one-liner posts stating enigmatic, bizarre stuff, mad because I called him out.
In any case, this thread must not be about Winehole's monumental lie, but about me (and my arguments, my posts, etc.) for daring to call him out.
from the comments of grit's page
sugarbear
The proposal you speak of doesn't add any new mitigation because organizations can already get the very same reduction in the current guidelines for "an effective compliance program." Look it up, it's Section 8C2.5(f) of the Guidelines. It's been that way since 1991.
Despite the erroneous headlines in the WSJ and other places, this proposal actually strengthens compliance by making the mitigation only available when the organization has a direct reporting relationship between compliance and the board, the compliance program detects the misconduct, and the organization promptly reports it before it is discovered or could reasonably be discovered. The only other difference is that an organization can now qualify even if an employee acting within his or her "substantial authority" (i.e. just about anyone in a multi-national) is involved - all provided the three new conditions are present.
I think if you were to read this proposal, and the other proposals for organizational guidelines, you'd see that the Commission is attempting to strengthen compliance and ethics not give anyone any breaks. By buying into the (wrong) hype here I think you are actually helping out corporate interests who DON'T want to see any of this get done because it'll cost them money to comply.
Citizens United Part II. Although I disagree, Wall Street companies simply won't care about this. And smaller companies won't either, I suspect. More important things to spend their time, resources and energy.I think if you were to read this proposal, and the other proposals for organizational guidelines, you'd see that the Commission is attempting to strengthen compliance and ethics not give anyone any breaks. By buying into the (wrong) hype here I think you are actually helping out corporate interests who DON'T want to see any of this get done because it'll cost them money to comply.
Tough think to ask these days.I think if you were to read this proposal,
I thought the sc was supposed to decide if a law went against the cons ution? Am I wrong?
I didn't lambaste it. You must not have followed the link provided. Mr. Henson lambasted it. Kindly direct your criticism at him.
What you know about me would fit in a thimble.I say 0%, the man is allergic to read more than posts or 1 page articles.
I admitted it without rancor last time, then I read Citizens United in toto.What are the chances that he'll actually acknowledge that? I say bellow 0%, he'll probably go on endless one-liner posts stating enigmatic, bizarre stuff, mad because I called him out.
(Yes, because I hate reading.)
The OP I posted as a bagatelle. I didn't vet it. I didn't read the sentencing guidelines, and I probably won't. Blow me.
Yeah, it's pretty much clear to everyone here I hate reading.In Winehole's very particular "reading is for gays" world
No, I don't. People either will either find me credible or they won't. That you think I'm not is neither here nor there really.Reality:Page 3. And the first two have the index and the le, so it's actually like the first page with text!! How the is this possible?!??!? How can anyone have this kind of chupatz? Do you care to explain why people should trust anything you say, Winehole?
Yeah. I did. I saw my mistake (one of memory, not of intention) and copped to it on the spot.I've learnt a long time ago, since I found you making totally false, misleading, statements about the conclusions of the UN in Iraq re: WMD
Btw, it's just like you to make taking responsibility for mistakes into a fault of character.
If I make a mistake, it's because I lied. If I fail to vet what someone else says, it's a lie. If I disagree with you, it's because I'm a liar. See the pattern? You're all ad hominem, kid.what your MO is, but I'm still curious how do your mind processes this? You don't mind lying left and right? You think it's unimportant? It's in the name of a bigger cause?
Thanks for the precis. You just saved me the trouble of reading it.And there's no suggestion about to reduce sentences and increase use of alternatives to incarceration for corporate crime. None. Zero. That stuff was just made out of thin air. Invented. The recommendations are about how to deal with corporations whose employees have been convicted of white collar crimes - namely the level of cooperation they're obliged to the DoJ. But it's not about the criminals going to jail, it's about the fines that corporations and the disclosure requirements corporations may face or not accordingly to their level of comply to the guidelines (pp 32-40). And it doesn't even change the regime in their favour.
And as someone with half a brain would know, this is marginally about Wall Street companies - but mostly about Main Street companies - who do you think that are the companies whose prosecutions are overseen by judges?
Last edited by Winehole23; 02-03-2010 at 04:00 AM.
Too sinister by half. I don't have any minions or flunkies here to do my bidding. What other people say is all on their own account.
The OP relied on the WSJ's take on a 78 page do ent, and I did not vet it myself. That doesn't make me a liar, let alone a monumental one. It just makes me unfortunate in whom I chose to trust.In any case, this thread must not be about Winehole's monumental lie, but about me (and my arguments, my posts, etc.) for daring to call him out.
Take it up with the WSJ if you want to get to the root of the "lie", and try not to sprain your wrist patting yourself on the back for "daring" to call someone out on a message board. It doesn't take any bravery, just some free time and a modem.
Last edited by Winehole23; 02-03-2010 at 04:23 AM.
BTW, I thoroughly enjoyed your childish meltdown in this thread and I look forward to the reprise.
Unfortunate in whom I chose to trust? Nice euphemism. Sources were available. "I'm just unfortunate in whom I choose to trust, it's not really my fault"... hilarious. That was your excuse when you were parroting the nonsense you read on AmConMag on the relationship about neoconservatism and the new left. Man, you're really unlucky with the people you trust to inform yourself... maybe it's time to start being more cautious?
At this point, you're just borderline nonsensical. What the heck is wrong with the WSJ? You didn't even care to read the WSJ article?!? Not even after being exposed?
Read this very carefully: there's nothing wrong with the WSJ article. Not only your spread misinformation due to your reckless behaviour, you then try to blame others? Wow, I don't know what to say.
Who the is Mr. Henson? I don't know no Mr. Henson. One of those know-nothings you love to read and take misleading info to spread around? info If you were fooled by Mr. Henson, then you're the one who should talk to him, not me. This, of course, if you really care about being fooled.
All in all, it's sad that you weren't even able to man up and admit your responsibility for spreading false information - while the truthfulness of it was one click away.
As for the rest of your posts, I'll repeat myself:
.he'll probably go on endless one-liner posts stating enigmatic, bizarre stuff, mad because I called him out
More self-quotation. Classic.
Who was complaining about excessive personalization a minute ago? How quickly you change your stripes.
Only small minds talk about people, something like that?
mogrovejo feigns Olympian remoteness, but he rolls in the mud with the best of the them.
Once again, blaming the WSJ was wrong. They got it right. You're yet to apologize for the misleading info. You didn't even consider to recognize it; rather decided to embark in a ridiculous stream of ad hominem attacks. So predictable...
Are your feelings hurt?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
