![]() ![]() ![]() Reagan admitted to Marajuana use, as did Clinton. ![]() Umm, is it just me, or does it seem that Nasty Nate is getting out kinda early after being caught with almost 400 pounds of pot? We hear the story of the woman who gets 5 years for a pipe with some crack residue on it, and this guy gets caught with an enormous amount and serves 4 years? I guess I have to go there. Posted by wfrazerjr at 10:21 AM on November 21, 2005 I suggest you don't sell drugs or break the law in the first place then. Think that's unfair or harsh? Tough shit. another access - who draws the line? Is a drug trafficker okay but a rapist isn't? An ex-con has the right to resume a place in society - but that doesn't mean he or she gets every right and privelege back. The problem lies in allowing one type of felon vs. I'm stating categorically that no convicted felon should be teaching football to youngsters at a camp. on preview: lbb, I probably wouldn't be surprised at who falls under the heading of convicted drug felon - why do you assume such a thing? I'm stating categorically a convicted drug felon should not be teaching football to youngsters at a camp. But don't use that as a way to excuse Newton's crimes. As long as what you're doing doesn't affect me, I don't really care and neither should the government. I actually agree with you in general terms. He broke the law (twice that he was caught and many, many more by his own account) and he has to pay for that. The fight to legalize it has nothing to do with Nate Newton. Nice red herring, Galt, but it is illegal. Posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:09 AM on November 21, 2005 The saying goes, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime," but really it should be, "If you can't do the time, and aren't willing to take the risk of whatever additional punishment and loss of citizenship rights the electorate decides to slap on you following the commission of the crime, then don't do the crime." This guy could indeed be a bad candidate for teaching young kids at a football camp, but if you want to state that he is categorically so by virtue of being an ex-con.that's a big issue and it needs to be addressed honestly. We do not allow ex post facto laws.yet, more and more, it seems we want to tack plus-you-gets onto the ends of sentences. We have this notion of serving one's time, paying one's debt to society and then being able to rejoin it - that's a central assumption in our criminal justice system, yet we're unwilling to allow ex-cons to rejoin society. ![]() More importantly, there is chico's point. Wfrazerjr, you might be surprised at who falls under the heading of "convicted drug felon" these days. Posted by RushLB49 at 06:40 AM on November 20, 2005 Finally, anyone who wants to come to his defense by saying its just weed, you bring that weed around my community, and you'll find out real fast the difference between someone who wastes their life smoking, and someone who doesn't live their life in a vegetative state in front of a tv w/ the munchies. You HAVE TO AT LEAST QUESTION what kind of CHARACTER the people in this organization have! Second, at the end he says he's spending his time LAUGHING?! YOUR TAX $ payed for a MILLIONAIRE to sit in prison. Its a pretty sad world we live in when O-D Sports thinks that by having a 'Big Name' people will want to send their kids to the camp even though he ran drugs to the children of their community. O-D Sports football camp will NEVER get any business from my players or any other coaches or kids that I come into contact with (if I can help it) if they hire CONVICTS. First, I'm a coach and I played 17 years of football- you can do the math to see where I'm coming from. Do not duplicate in any form without permission of the Dallas Cowboys.Ok. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |