Cruel and Unusual Punishment?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

I agree. I think your next-door-neighbor on your block should entirely be able to let his yard go back to "completely natural". He's smart not to mow your lot line - let it get 6 feet tall. Rats be damned!

$600-$1200 a day? How about $20 a day?

Do you realize this law is discriminatory to both poor and elderly people? Who can’t afford or physically can’t cut their lawns? They are the only ones who will pay this fine.

[dellinger63]

Florida Prisoner Suing Over ‘Cruel And Unusual’ Soy-Based Meals

A Florida inmate is suing the state’s prison system for pulling the pork from his meals.

Eric Harris, a 32-year-old convicted pedophile who is serving a life sentence, suggests Lake Correctional Institution’s policy of serving a vegan diet is seriously affecting the quality of his life sentence.

The Weston A. Price Foundation, a special interest group against soy products, will pick up the case’s legal expenses, and announced it has class-action ambitions including other prisoners, prison guards and taxpayers.

http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2011/11/08...y-based-meals/

Whatever group this is, to pay for representation of a pedophile, serving a life sentence is cruel and unusual and they should pay at least what a poor guy in Chicago would pay for not mowing his lawn for everyday this guy serves for being part of a frivolous lawsuit.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

$600-$1200 a day? How about $20 a day?

Do you realize this law is discriminatory to both poor and elderly people? Who can’t afford or physically can’t cut their lawns? They are the only ones who will pay this fine.

It's not discriminatory. Everyone has to pay whose grass is too tall.

Do you believe the ordinance is good or not? Not the fine amount, just the ordinance - yes or no?

City needs money. Rather than raising the fines on people who break city ordinances, would you like taxes raised on everybody, instead?

The ordinance breakers pay more.
Everybody pays more.

Pick one, Dell. "None of the above" doesn't work. The city needs money. Bring some revenue-raisers to the table.

(PS - but nice to see you admit that "expensive things", like healthcare for instance, are "discriminatory" to those that "can't afford it", or can't physically be healthy and not need it)

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Pick one, Dell. "None of the above" doesn't work. The city needs money. Bring some revenue-raisers to the table.

The city needs to reduce its need for money by reducing its army of patronage workers. An alderman and former mayor do not need a crew of bodyguards etc etc etc

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

(PS - but nice to see you admit that "expensive things", like healthcare for instance, are "discriminatory" to those that "can't afford it", or can't physically be healthy and not need it)

If Obamacare had a daily fine of $600-$1200 for not complying you'd have a point.

You don't because people who can't afford it whether by circumstances beyond their control or directly because of their own actions will be subsidized by those completely unrelated to them or their health situation.

Should homeowners in Chicago be forced to mow the lawns of those too old, poor and in some cases too lazy or should the city fine them $1,200/day until it adds up enough to foreclose?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

If Obamacare had a daily fine of $600-$1200 for not complying you'd have a point.

Finally! Good to see you finally admit that there is no enforceable fine for not purchasing health insurance in the PPACA.

Congrats

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Finally! Good to see you finally admit that there is no enforceable fine for not purchasing health insurance in the PPACA.

Congrats

Until 2014? You know when tax penalties go into effect.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Until 2014? You know when tax penalties go into effect.

You mean, when the line in the PPACA specifically prohibiting the IRS from collecting or attempting to collect those fines is in effect, too?

You've got dog **** all over your face. Ewwww.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

You mean, when the line in the PPACA specifically prohibiting the IRS from collecting or attempting to collect those fines is in effect, too?

You've got dog **** all over your face. Ewwww.

Guess 45 mins is a long time to remember.

November 8, 2011 9:21 PM
By The Associated Press NEDRA PICKLER (Associated Press)

WASHINGTON - (AP) -- A conservative-leaning appeals court panel on Tuesday upheld the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's health care law, as the Supreme Court prepares to consider this week whether to resolve conflicting rulings over the law's requirement that all Americans buy health care insurance.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a split opinion upholding the lower court's ruling that found Congress did not overstep its authority in requiring people to have insurance or pay a penalty on their taxes, beginning in 2014. The requirement is the most controversial requirement of Obama's signature domestic legislative achievement and the focus of conflicting opinions from judges across the country. The Supreme Court could decide as early as Thursday during a closed meeting of the justices whether to accept appeals from some of those earlier rulings.

As far as dog crap on the face, look into the mirror!