"Obamacare"

Most of the Eurozone is not socialist. But Norway is hardly "failing."

That makes about as much sense as saying you're a pacifist that loves war. Which is to say: none whatsoever, and it's absurd.

 

What greater value than life have other than life? Way to not thnk beyond the obvious, TRAT.

 

It's you that isn't thinking. How can you possibly value life when you are so willing to strip it from someone?

 

How can you say you value life if youa re not willing to strip it from one who goes out of is way to callously murders viciously and repeatedly?

 

Because valuing life means valuing ALL life, whether you like the person or not.

Besides, the death penalty is not justice, it is revenge.

 

If it's YOUR family that gets murdered/heinously violated, then it's firstly THEIR decision what happens to the criminal (not in our INjustice system but in an actually just system that's how it'd work).

Seriously, it's up to the VICTIM to determine what should happen to THEIR violator. If they die or otherwise are incapable of determining what punishment should be given to the criminal, then it's the decision of THEIR FAMILY; still not you. You saying that you have the right to arbitrate the justicve between two other people is arrogant to the point of being evil.

Now granted, there should be maximum punishments that people can get for crimes that way the punishment isn't disproportionately harsh for the crime they committed, but who should determine how that should work, and how, is another story that I won't comment on right now.

 

This reflects a complete misunderstanding of what a "justice system" is and what the role of government is related to those that violate the person or property of another.

The "justice system" is about imposing limitations upon government to protect those that have not violated the law from being wrongfully convicted. If we look at the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments to the US Constitution they all related to protecting those accused of a criminal act and even providing protections to the convicted individual. The justice system is about protecting the Rights of the People.

Even when a person is convicted of a crime where an infringement upon their inalienable Rights is pragmatically necessary that infringement should always be to the least extent possible to provide for the protection of the inalienable Rights of all other individuals in society. The "sentencing" of a person is about protecting society from future crimes by that individual and it is not about punishing the individual. The Declaration of Independence clearly establishes that our government's primary purpose is to "protect" the inalienable Rights of the People and it doesn't establish any foundation for our government to punish anyone.

Society can be protected from even the most heinous of individuals by simple incarceration for as long as is deemed necessary. That incarceration is a pragmatic infringement upon the Right of Liberty of the convicted individual. There is no pragmatic reason to violate the convicted individual's Right to Life as it isn't required to protect society from the actions of that person.

 

This reflects a complete misunderstanding of what a "justice system" is and what the role of government is related to those that violate the person or property of another.

The "justice system" is about imposing limitations upon government to protect those that have not violated the law from being wrongfully convicted. If we look at the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments to the US Constitution they all related to protecting those accused of a criminal act and even providing protections to the convicted individual. The justice system is about protecting the Rights of the People.

Even when a person is convicted of a crime where an infringement upon their inalienable Rights is pragmatically necessary that infringement should always be to the least extent possible to provide for the protection of the inalienable Rights of all other individuals in society. The "sentencing" of a person is about protecting society from future crimes by that individual and it is not about punishing the individual. The Declaration of Independence clearly establishes that our government's primary purpose is to "protect" the inalienable Rights of the People and it doesn't establish any foundation for our government to punish anyone.

Society can be protected from even the most heinous of individuals by simple incarceration for as long as is deemed necessary. That incarceration is a pragmatic infringement upon the Right of Liberty of the convicted individual. There is no pragmatic reason to violate the convicted individual's Right to Life as it isn't required to protect society from the actions of that person.

 

Yes, that is what they are trying the do. You see, those at the TOP of the food-chain will remain wealthy (temporarily so), whether millions suffer or not. So, until they are touched in some significant way, they will not change the course they are on. Things can change politically (as we typically work to do in America), or there can be a literal revolt... which would surely come if there is no change made in other ways (as I suggested).

So, we can agree that 3rd-World is fine for the wealthy, for a time. (Then eventually... boom.)

That is because our system generates an inordinate amount of WEALTH as oppose to 'health'. Many have interest in keeping things the way they are here in America. It is obvious.

Many on the Right in America are very selective on the issue of preserving human life. On one hand, some will go insanely out of their way to control the reproductive rights of 'women'... yet PUSH HARD for the right poison our water, air and overall environment. It is all very understandable... if you follow the money.

 

If one is unwilling to take the life of the murderer than you have just devalued the life of hs victim.

By the way does anyone here besides me see the pure raw Irony in this:

Barack Obama: 4 more years!! O'12!! (And Mr. Mint-Raw-Money... "corporations" aren't people.) Bigotry, fear and hatred are powerful addictions.

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Killing the murder lets him get off easy.

 

Actually I completely agree, which is why I support (honestly) torture as a reasonable punishment for some crimes.

 

So why is life expectancy in the US 38th on the list at 78.2 years, while

#1 Japan 82.6 years
#8 Spain 80.9 years
#10 Canada 80.7 years
#13 Italy and UK 80.5 years
#36 Cuba 78.3 years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

If I could be bothered I could also show that the US has a higher murder rate than any of the countries that have abolished the death penalty.

 

That's because the U.S. is full of violent psychopaths and ghetto thugs. It isn't CAUSED by the death penalty in any way. Frankly some people deserve to be tortured to the extent of unimaginable pain and suffering beyond (*)(*)(*)(*)ing belief for their crimes.

 

So what is it caused by, and doesn't this show that the death penalty is not deterrent?

 

Good. Then we can do away with the death penalty.

 

The death penalty would be a great deterrent if it was carried out properly. It's not a true death penalty when 15-25 years often pass before the execution possibly takes place.

There should be a limitation of say three years for all appeals, then automatic execution if no positive results are attained. Then, we would have a true death penalty, and it would be a deterrent.

The bleeding heart liberals are partially responsible for so much capital crime, but they aren't honest enough to admit it.

 

We have a culture BORN of violence; we practically worship guns. Of course many get killed here.

Maybe not... but I don't think the death penalty has helped reduce crime.

I would disagree... torture is immoral IMO.

 

No, we're not. We don't tell rich people to rely on themselves.

 

I see pros/cons to the reality that Health Care is boosted to the front burner these days.

Either way, the PEOPLE are going to fight for a system which helps them.

I would rather not see the Supreme Court rule against the mandate. However, I think most Americans realize that a Single Payer system as other nations have, is likely the best best.

The idea of Single Payer was shelved during the last set of debates, but if the USSC rules against "The Affordable Healthcare Act"... then Single Payer will be brought up again.

So, I DO see positives in the USSC ruling against the AHCA.

We'll see what happens.

 

We execute less than half the people convicted of murder and none of the unemployed or disabled or pensioners (I don't recall these even being suggested as crimes). What the heck are you talking about?

 

It's caused by too many people in the U.S. thinkin dey be gangsta and killing each other over drugs, and the only reason killing over drugs occurs is because they're illegal. Legalize drugs, prostitution etc. and disallow unproductive criminals to reproduce and violence would plummet. Period.

 

After the Second World War Britain was devastated, economically speaking. She had defended herself from the Nazi war machine in Europe and had suffered terribly. Six long years of war had taken their toll and at the general election the Labour Party under Attlee was elected to power. It was absolutely essential for socialist policies to be implemented, no other set of economic policies would have been able to rebuild Britain. Thanks to several brilliant minds and the political will of the government, Britain was able to rebuild herself. It seems that socialism works in the tough times while capitalism works when conditions are very good. It also seems that capitalism fails when conditions are not so good. Capitalism is for the good times and for the good times to be better for some than others.

On health care. In Britain health care has been seen, since the Attlee government, as a social service. In the United States it is seen as a business. The difference is in the temperament of the two nations. Recent memory in Britain understands what tough times are like. There is no equivalent recent memory in the US. Americans will naturally hold to their values, one of which is independence of the individual, until things get so bad that there is a need for a re-think. But this is not to suggest that British values which tend to the more collectivist are superior or inferior to American values of individual independence. They're just different and while they work no-one is likely to be fussed. In health care specifically the business approach in the US is not working but it will be a long while until that realisation dawns as the opponents of universal health care, which is to say the vested interests, are able to play on American values to ensure that they can continue to make profits. Don't underestimate the power of propaganda.

 

Your last point. They're not just "world leaders", they're the rich. And of course they would, for example, in Cleveland you have the finest heart research/treatment facility in the world. And there are other centres of medical excellence. But that's not much use to people who can't afford to get treatment there. The effectiveness of a health care system isn't measured in the number of world class research/medical centres it has, it's measured in how health care is delivered to the general population and on that the US fails miserably.

 

The NHS in particular in Britain has not been properly funded by successive governments from the odious Thatcher onwards. That it even exists at all is evidence of the fear of conservative governments of the anger of the electorate if it were to move to a US business approach.

There is no true capitalism, unless you mean the laissez-faire approach which even the average American couldn't stomach nowadays. A pragmatic mix of capitalism and socialism is probably best for any economy in these times.