The problem with the stupid test is that it totally ignores the central tenent of liberalism: We're wishy washy and can't articulate any particular policy position because we tend to overthink everything and then try to incorporate the various points of view that we've duly considered into the policy position so it turns into this long, drawn out mess that no one really agrees with entirely but it was sorta kinda a consensus and we stopped arguing (loudly anyways, cuz there's a group in the corner muttering about our selling out) when we got to this vague, not entirely clear policy point that people stoped listenting to after "we're wishy washy."

You forgot to mention the hand wringing.

better to have left that out. some people could have been offended.

How much do they pay their teachers?

So those Catholic schools, they've got enough extra capacity to take anyone who knocks at the door? And they will take anyone who knocks at the door? And, like, if the kid isn't Catholic, they're all like cool and stuff with the kid not doing the religious stuff?

Or is religious freedom only for those who can afford it?

Cost Benefit
 

I have already stated for the record that I am against vouchers. But you have to be honest about the negative effects of any policy you espouse.

Catholic schools do an amazing job of educating lower middle class and even poor students. Be that as it may, in my opinion, the positive aspects of vouchers do not outweigh the negative effects some of which have already been pointed out and others that I think are quite obvious.

In the real world, problems with evidence usually result in lesser plea bargains, rather than "clearly guilty murderers and child molesters go". I know, it's a horrible thing to think about what really happens, but hey.

That said, until someone proposes a reasonable alternative to the exlusionary rule that protects the rights that Americans expect, then I'm in favor of it. If that means that, on occasion (very rare occasions in my experience -- and those who are not later arrested again would be even more rare), guilty people go free, then that's a trade-off I accept.

I think Balt is angry because your definition of liberal looks ONLY to the negative consequence.

Am I in favor of letting child molesters run free? According to you, I am, because I favor the exclusionary rule. Thus, a liberal is a supporter of child moleters

By that logic, a conservative is someone who believes that the Fourth Amendment has no application, that police should be allowed to enter any home in America or search any person anytime they want, and that obtaining confessions through torture is a legitimate law enforcement technique. Right? Isn't that the "obvious consequence" of rejecting the exclusionary rule, when you have no alternative in place?

It's all free!

You're thinking that, when there is clear evidence that someone is a murderer and that piece of evidence is excluded, the police no longer keep track of the person?

Sorry -- I assumed you might be"thinking" My bad.

You've been hanging out with DeLay again, haven't you.

I hate the exclusionary rule. It makes no sense. But then I say the right solution is that if some cop violates someone's constitutional rights, you should just jail the cop. And the pansy-assed conservatives won't let that happen.

Just one liberal's view.

No. I meant that if a murderer or child molester is arrested again then someone else has been murderer or molested. I wasn't really taking a position on the rule, just pointing to your off-hand comment that seems to discount another life being ruined by the rule.

As to who isn't thinking on this board- it's pretty clear to me that spanky comes here out of boredom and makes borderline outrageous statements and then you all argue with him as if he really believes the things he says. When you all argue with him and he's doing it, do you feel good because you're "winning?"

I'd fine 'em, not jail 'em. Other than the ones who commit actual crimes.

if you chopped off a finger with each bad arrest, pretty soon they'd have to start being more careful, or they wouldn't be able to hold a gun anymore.

So, what's wrong with that?

Didn't you retire?

A couple of times. But planting season is weeks away and there's nothing good around to read. I need a trip to the bookstore.

I think a law making it a crime to violate someone's constitutional rights makes sense. There's always that troublesome intent problem, but most of the time in these case I'll bet intent is pretty clear (Officer, did you intend to search the house without a warrant, or did it just happen accidentally?).

So jail 'em. Don't coddle 'em.

Well, you'd have to prove specific intent to violate their rights, but putting that aside, I doubt that the police actually intend to violate rights in the majority of exclusionary rule cases. I suspect that in many instances they thought they were acting under one of the exceptions allowing immediate search and seizure (plain view; exigent circumstances) later found by a court not to have been adequately established.

I know that exclusionary rule cases make for great story lines on tv, but do you think cops are regularly busting down doors just hoping to find evidence of a crime?

Exactly.

So you're thinking the police wait until he kills someone else?

I dunno. You're the one with all the scary experience. You said "arrested again," but now you're implying no second crime happens. Hmmmmm, do you mean like they catch him just before the second crime happens like in that one Tom Cruise movie? or are you saying when the evidence get thrown out for a first crime the cops keep working the file and eventually break it open and it's all good?

Usually they're too busy beating up stray motorists to bust down the doors, but, yeh, when they're bored.

They just beat them on the way out of the courthouse.

I'm saying that with competent police work, it is very rare that cases get thrown out because all of the evidence was obtained in violation of the exclusionary rule. It happens, but it doesn't happen often. Even where it does happen, you often have to wait until trial to get a decision, and so it's more likely that the motion you would be able to bring will provide some leverage in the plea bargain process, but that's about it.

It's also not that unusual that state courts simply disregard the exclusionary rule, and that the appellate courts then find that the wrongly admitted evidence was "harmless." Which leaves the defendant with little recourse, because federal courts will not hear fourth amendment issues on habeas. This is another reason why you are more likely to try to plea bargain when there is clear guilt, then you are to assume that you can get the wrongly acquired evidence tossed and so you'll take your chances on going forward.

I am also saying, and have said, that I am willing to accept the consequence of this rule. I have yet to hear an alternative that would protect constitutional rights, and despite decades of people griping about this rule no one seems to have come up with one.

In Spanky-land, that means I want all murderers to run free or something.

Now I am seeing murderers running like in "Born Free." thanks.

In Greedy-land, you are letting the wayward cops who infringe our constitutional rights run free.

"Jail the police" is hardly a viable solution, for any number of reasons.

Re-branding
 

"The Politics Board - Bringing You Reasoned Debate And Viable Solutions Since 2000"

Re-branding
 

I just saw an Irish movie called "Breakfast on Pluto." In that movie 1 out of 3 guys you meet in any depth dresses like a woman and has sex with other guys. Does that percentage hold true across the entire population?

Re-branding
 

Dunno - what's the percentage in all of the other obscure gay porno movies you've seen?

Re-branding
 

Hmmmm. Does the movie your mom showed me, of you as Peter PAn in your senior class play count as one? That school you went to- I never knew that's what "open school" meant.

Re-treading
 

You may want to update your schtick- for this and other apparent reasons.

Re-treading
 

honestly. you're up 2-nil with a few minutes left and Zurawski takes a run? is his contract almost up?

Like when the autistic kid dunks on you.
 

It's 8:30 here and I still might go 4-0 on your ass just to keep myself amused. Play to the whistle, Hank - isn't that what they tell your kids?

Like when the autistic kid dunks on you.
 

No. i told my kids that soccer is a faggot sport and they should just quit and get out on the b-ball court.

We are the only developed country that uses the exclusionary rule. Western Europe seems to somehow muddle through without it and somehow they have escaped becoming police states. Go figure.

and one of a select few that has the death penalty. as you say- those other countries get along.

Conf. to Spank- West Europe will be mostly Islamic states by 2050 so be prepared to have other examples.

Like when the autistic kid dunks on you.
 

That's not what you said when you were showing off all your tattoos at the match last week.

http://www.etims.net/images/stories/christalmighty.jpg