Miscellaneous News. - Page 53

But the death penalty doesn't act as a deterrent at alllllllllloh I see what you did there. 

Nothing wrong with the death penalty if one deserves it with the crime they committed.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvfox 

Nothing wrong with the death penalty if one deserves it with the crime they committed.
 

I have three problems with this:

1. The death penalty is more expensive to implement than life imprisonment for the rest of the life of the perpetrator.

2. The death penalty is the "easy way out". If someone sane is actually guilty, it's far more of a punishment for them to spend the rest of their life living with the punishment and the guilt of what they have done than simply going to sleep forever and feeling nothing.

3. The cases where there is a wrongful conviction (and it does happen). There is no recourse for the death penalty once it has been administered.

I would think life imprisonment is much more costly than a lethal injection.These killers who are in prison for life the poor taxpayers are paying for this.Give them food, prison attire, and health care and this adds up quite a bit.Granted some prisoners can be wrongly condemned but the majority there rightly deserve what is coming to them.Ask good old Rick Perry of Texas how many died under his watch and he has no second thoughts about this at all.
 

That is correct. Their fees are outrageous to begin with.
 

You listen to many right wing radio hosts likely to think like this.No one is taking over anything.
 

The New McCarthy.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/02/ted-cruz-responds-harvard-law-was-full-of-communists.html

Them's be commies amongst us!

If he had a problem with it, why did he stay?  So, he is just trying to smear Harvard.  But, by being amongst the zombies, could he have become one, too?

Ooh! 

Part of me wants to ask, Where does the GOP find these people and how do they get elected?

Then I pinch myself and remind myself, this is the GOP.

Voters elect them who are foolish. Cruz is nothing more than a loud mouth and bellows crap which really does not make any sense at all.
 

Most of you members I see are really arrogant and rude and just post more bullshit everyday except one gentleman named Tonton.You think you know it all with your charts and photos and other nonsense you post here.I belong to other sites and people on these are not arrogant and they are polite and never crass or rude.Grow Up!
 

Has there ever, in the history of America, been a presidential administration as dismissive of religious liberties as the Obama Administration?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Has there ever, in the history of America, been a presidential administration as dismissive of religious liberties as the Obama Administration?

No.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Has there ever, in the history of America, been a presidential administration as dismissive of religious liberties as the Obama Administration?

 

No.

Why do you think that corporations should have religious liberties?

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

Why do you think that corporations should have religious liberties?

Because their owners do not lose their conscience rights when they enter the world of commerce.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

Why do you think that corporations should have religious liberties?

 

Because their owners do not lose their conscience rights when they enter the world of commerce.

So why don't corporations have all personal rights accorded to individuals?

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

So why don't corporations have all personal rights accorded to individuals?

Because corporations are different from humans. They don't need "all personal rights" that the constitution recognizes for people.

However the owners of a business should have the freedom to express their conscience or religious faith where they deem it intersects with their deeply held beliefs. A devout Jew, for example, should not be forced by law to sell non-Kosher meat if he doesn't want to.

As for BR, there's really no reason to pay attention to such drivel. This site is reporting that Apple has joined a group to promote same sex marriage, and you don't hear him arguing that they shouldn't do that. And Apple is a publicly traded corporation. Did the owners even sign on to this little crusade? Of course not.

But he'll happily take away the same rights from business people he disagrees with.

Leftists cry intolerance at every opportunity to mask their own hateful prejudices.

"Corporations are people, my friend."

Some guy supported by the GOP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

So why don't corporations have all personal rights accorded to individuals?

 

Because corporations are different from humans. They don't need "all personal rights" that the constitution recognizes for people.

 

However the owners of a business should have the freedom to express their conscience or religious faith where they deem it intersects with their deeply held beliefs. A devout Jew, for example, should not be forced by law to sell non-Kosher meat if he doesn't want to.

 

As for BR, there's really no reason to pay attention to such drivel. This site is reporting that Apple has joined a group to promote same sex marriage, and you don't hear him arguing that they shouldn't do that. And Apple is a publicly traded corporation. Did the owners even sign on to this little crusade? Of course not.

 

But he'll happily take away the same rights from business people he disagrees with.

 

Leftists cry intolerance at every opportunity to mask their own hateful prejudices.

So how are you picking and choosing which "personal rights" corporations should have? Is there some method here, or would it just be the ones that you care about?

Your example is irrelevant, since the law does not dictate what businesses must sell, but does include numerous provisions for what businesses must provide for their employees in the way of working conditions, salary, benefits etc..  Are you opposed to all those requirements, or just the ones that intrude on your religions convictions?  Just curious, because many of them don't apply to individuals, so would you say that they are all infringing the rights of business owners.

And what does Apple's reported support for same-sex marriage have to do with this either?  The law does not preclude a corporation from supporting a particular position (such as being against buying health insurance that covers procedures that the owners disapprove of) - it merely requires them to follow the law.

And BR is not arguing for taking away people's rights - he is arguing that corporations are not people.  As for "hateful prejudices", now you are becoming hysterical.

Corporations are money makers who give a shit less about the average working stiff out there. Take your banks making a ton of money off the poor taxpayer who bailed these bitches out.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777 

As for BR, there's really no reason to pay attention to such drivel. This site is reporting that Apple has joined a group to promote same sex marriage, and you don't hear him arguing that they shouldn't do that. And Apple is a publicly traded corporation. Did the owners even sign on to this little crusade? Of course not.

The irony is palpable, isn't it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777 

But he'll happily take away the same rights from business people he disagrees with.

Exactly.

Great moments in journalistic irony...

Manning made his bed now he has to lay down in it and feel the consequences of what he did to this country.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvfox 

Manning made his bed now he has to lay down in it and feel the consequences of what he did to this country.
 

Manning is just another target in the government's war against whistleblowers, who are often people of conscience who take huge personal risks (sometimes terminal) to expose crime and corruption in government.

I guess those who round on the likes of Manning, Edmonds, Ellsberg, Lindauer, Marshall et al, are shills for big, intrusive, criminal, unaccountable government, in other words, cowards and weasels hiding behind the phony mask of "patriotism".

When you play with fire you get burned.Manning should have minded his own dam business and not have got involved where he does not belong. He gets what he deserves!
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvfox 

When you play with fire you get burned.Manning should have minded his own dam business and not have got involved where he does not belong. He gets what he deserves!
 

So, let me get this right - you think that criminals in high places should be treated with kid gloves, with immunity and impunity, whereas those who try to bring them to order should get the shaft?

In a parallel incident, a small group of lowly privates got court martialed and booted out of the military for the Abu Ghraib torture episodes, just for following orders which originated at the topmost levels of the Pentagon. The who gave the orders, of course, were never even admonished, let alone saw a courtroom, despite the seriousness of their crime(s).

Looks like you have an inverted sense of right and wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

We need more transparency in government. We should expand the Freedom of Information Act so that we can hold government accountable. There should be zero classified documents over ten years old. If it's something that the public can't know about within ten years then its not something we should be doing.

That seems a little too broad. So you would be comfortable with, for example, public dissemination of advanced nuclear weapons designs? Even if you feel that they should never have been built, they were. That's just one example - I can think of many more categories of information with similar concerns. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

We need more transparency in government. We should expand the Freedom of Information Act so that we can hold government accountable. There should be zero classified documents over ten years old. If it's something that the public can't know about within ten years then its not something we should be doing.

That seems a little too broad. So you would be comfortable with, for example, public dissemination of advanced nuclear weapons designs? Even if you feel that they should never have been built, they were. That's just one example - I can think of many more categories of information with similar concerns. 

Good point. Obviously there needs to be specific exceptions. But every word discussed during the lead up to the Iraq war should be public record. Every argument in favor of more drone attacks by the Obama administration should be public.

Disclosure of intelligence sources or intelligence gathering technology is one cause for extended classification, and most of those discussions probably include such information.  It's important to remember that the primary reason for classification is to keep information from enemies (or potential enemies) of the US, not, per se, to hide it from US citizens. Unfortunately, since limitation of distribution is one of the main ways to safeguard information, that is a necessary consequence.  It is a misuse of classification to use it purely to hide political decisions.

That is what Obama advocated transparency all the time. Unfortunately he is not adhering to it with some of his policies.Like persecuting the banks who some of these CEO'S should be in jail by now.Nothing done about that.
 

I never said that what you are implying.Criminals should get what they deserve if they are guilty.Small time crooks or the CEO'S of banks.DO NOT DO THE CRIME IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO DO TIME.

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvfox 

That is what Obama advocated transparency all the time. Unfortunately he is not adhering to it with some of his policies.Like persecuting the banks who some of these CEO'S should be in jail by now.Nothing done about that.
 

You mean prosecuting, marv. And yes, they should be. I agree with you. This is something that Iceland did correctly, and they are recovering far more quickly than other places like Greece and Italy.

Hugo Chavez dies from cancer.

Who cares. He hated the U.S. anyway.
 

This will never happen in the states with these banks and bankers. To much politics and money involved and power moves.