HeyYou

They certainly won't re-offend, and one could debate about saving taxpayer money.... I have seen too many arguments for both sides on that..... one side says "but they spend millions of taxpayer dollars on appeals", Ok, that is probably true, but, it's not like the guys that get life DON'T do the same thing....... I think the biggest problem there is, you can get a retrial/appeal for the stupidest reasons. If the prosecution lawyer farts in the courtroom, that's cause for an appeal. The lawyers are the ones that make the money. Not to mention some of the convicts file appeals simply because they CAN, not that they really expect a different outcome. Yeah, the legal system here leaves quite a bit to be desired....... but, its what we got to work with...... I don't see it changing any time soon, and if it DOES change, it will most likely revert to frontier justice, because the american people got seriously tired of their government bending them over, without benefit of lubricant, and tossed them ALL out on their collective ears. Who says they won't? If they are dead, they are no longer any kind of threat.

They certainly won't re-offend, and one could debate about saving taxpayer money.... I have seen too many arguments for both sides on that..... one side says "but they spend millions of taxpayer dollars on appeals", Ok, that is probably true, but, it's not like the guys that get life DON'T do the same thing....... I think the biggest problem there is, you can get a retrial/appeal for the stupidest reasons. If the prosecution lawyer farts in the courtroom, that's cause for an appeal. The lawyers are the ones that make the money. Not to mention some of the convicts file appeals simply because they CAN, not that they really expect a different outcome. Yeah, the legal system here leaves quite a bit to be desired....... but, its what we got to work with...... I don't see it changing any time soon, and if it DOES change, it will most likely revert to frontier justice, because the american people got seriously tired of their government bending them over, without benefit of lubricant, and tossed them ALL out on their collective ears.

How about we make a more humane prison system then? What do you mean by that? TV, three warm meals, a good bed and a courtyard don't seem that inhumane. Most will only have to deal with it for a few years too and the ones that stay there for life don't deserve any better. Its not humane to create a environment where it is as easy as you said to kill someone. Don't care what you do, aside from individual cells, and NO interaction whatsoever, folks are gonna kill each other. That's just the way it is, be it in prison, or, in the real world. My question becomes, Why should a man that has killed someone, get to live, be provided three meals a day, cable tv, and a warm place to sleep at night for the rest of his life? (which can potentially be decades....) while his victims have been deprived of all of the above? Is THAT justice? Perhaps it isn't justice, but do you think it is okay to take someones life simply due to your emotions? Does that make you any better then someone who kills out of rage? The question should be why they should not be allowed to live. Not why should they be allowed to live. Why do you assume it is an emotional decision? Is that the only possible motivation for the death penalty? How about "Fairness" for instance? You deprive someone of their life, some family of a loved one, whom they may have depended on to support the family, be prepared to give up your own life in return. Sure, it would be better to put them to work, and have them support the living victims of their crime, as a form of restitution, but, it seems the ACLU came to the conclusion that it's unconstitutional to do so..... Convicted criminals have more rights than their victims. What does fairness have to do with it? It is still a emotional decision. An eye for an eye is not fairness. I still propose the thing I proposed in my previous topic. I don't see how it can be considered unconstitutional, and I don't really care about what the US law system thinks is right on the subject. Obviously the US law system isn't working very well with the death penalty. It is not logical to kill captured criminals, that is for sure. The only real argument for it in my eyes is to remove the threat. It seems just as safe, and better for society as a whole, if you lock them up and have them work. Can people quit with the whole "just hang them" thing? I already explained why a long appeal process is required. We have a long appeal process to be sure we don't kill innocents. Do you seriously want to kill criminals so much you are willing to risk innocent lives? I am still a bit confused on what people mean when they say criminals have more rights then their victims. It shouldn't be up to the victims to make legal decisions. That is the entire reason we have a legal system. Well, you could reason that every/any decision was emotional then. So, it's pointless debating it further.

How about we make a more humane prison system then? What do you mean by that? TV, three warm meals, a good bed and a courtyard don't seem that inhumane. Most will only have to deal with it for a few years too and the ones that stay there for life don't deserve any better. Its not humane to create a environment where it is as easy as you said to kill someone. Don't care what you do, aside from individual cells, and NO interaction whatsoever, folks are gonna kill each other. That's just the way it is, be it in prison, or, in the real world. My question becomes, Why should a man that has killed someone, get to live, be provided three meals a day, cable tv, and a warm place to sleep at night for the rest of his life? (which can potentially be decades....) while his victims have been deprived of all of the above? Is THAT justice? Perhaps it isn't justice, but do you think it is okay to take someones life simply due to your emotions? Does that make you any better then someone who kills out of rage? The question should be why they should not be allowed to live. Not why should they be allowed to live. Why do you assume it is an emotional decision? Is that the only possible motivation for the death penalty? How about "Fairness" for instance? You deprive someone of their life, some family of a loved one, whom they may have depended on to support the family, be prepared to give up your own life in return. Sure, it would be better to put them to work, and have them support the living victims of their crime, as a form of restitution, but, it seems the ACLU came to the conclusion that it's unconstitutional to do so..... Convicted criminals have more rights than their victims.

How about we make a more humane prison system then? What do you mean by that? TV, three warm meals, a good bed and a courtyard don't seem that inhumane. Most will only have to deal with it for a few years too and the ones that stay there for life don't deserve any better. Its not humane to create a environment where it is as easy as you said to kill someone. Don't care what you do, aside from individual cells, and NO interaction whatsoever, folks are gonna kill each other. That's just the way it is, be it in prison, or, in the real world. My question becomes, Why should a man that has killed someone, get to live, be provided three meals a day, cable tv, and a warm place to sleep at night for the rest of his life? (which can potentially be decades....) while his victims have been deprived of all of the above? Is THAT justice?

Is it? Or, would they rather "rot" in prison, than be dead? Personally, I just wouldn't have a problem putting a bullet in the head of most killers. I would probably even smile while I did it. If that makes me a 'monster', so be it.

Didn't seem to work so bad in Vietnam, were 90% of the troops were draftees...... :D

I fail to see how. People working for said corporation are getting paid from the funds generated by them. Taxing the corporate income before taking another bite by taxing the individual income is most certainly a double dip. Not to mention the 3rd bite taken out of someone with lots of money who has the misfortune of doing nothing more than dying. Expenses, including payroll.... are subtracting from gross income before taxes are computed....... Corporations are taxed on profit, profit is what's left after ALL expenses (including wages) are paid.

Dear God ..you want some social reject watching your back? No thanks....keep them far away from the military. But if you want to put them to work then put them to fixing the roads ......oh wait we used to do that.....but that was too uncivil of us to actually expect labor that benefited the public. :rolleyes: It used to be an option for various crimes....... I am not suggesting that we put rapists/murderers/etc into the military...... That would just be a silly idea. :D Yeah, they used to make license plates too.... but, for some reason, that was 'unconstitutional'........ We can't force prisoners to do it, but, non-criminals CAN? What's that all about? Our society has some pretty serious issues, brought on in the name of "mercy", or, "political correctness", etc. We are our own worst enemies.

Drop them from stealth bombers. :D

Some folks deserve to be killed for what they have done. However, considering that the average death row inmate spends 15+ years before even coming close to the executioners block, it's really kinda pointless. I don't particularly care for my tax dollars going to support a selection of folks that sit around all day, and watch cable TV, (also at my expense....) get three squares a day, and a warm place to sleep at night, when there are a good collection of folks that haven't committed a crime, that don't have the same thing.... Prisons should become self-supporting. Provide some product for general consumption, either contracted to the state, or, even private corporations. (they obviously need to stay out of the service industry.....) Either that, or draft them into the military...... (give 'em a choice, X number of years in prison, or, X number of years in the military.)

Lets require that THEY go out and sit in the pilots seat for a few missions, and THEN decide which aircraft they would rather have...... making these decisions only by dollars signs is a good way to get good men killed. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be flying the 'latest generation' technology, built by the lowest bidder.... (Of course, the shuttle fell into that category as well...... and is the safest form of travel per passenger mile on earth..... of course, no one was shooting at them either. :D) Well it would solve the congressional term limits issue for the short sighted among them..... :whistling: Ok, there it is. Yet another monitor cleaning courtesy of Aurielius........ :D

Lets require that THEY go out and sit in the pilots seat for a few missions, and THEN decide which aircraft they would rather have...... making these decisions only by dollars signs is a good way to get good men killed. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be flying the 'latest generation' technology, built by the lowest bidder.... (Of course, the shuttle fell into that category as well...... and is the safest form of travel per passenger mile on earth..... of course, no one was shooting at them either. :D)

Vote not ......then b*tch not. It's your call what to do with your rights, but one thought to mull over...you are making others who do more valuable in the final tally. When given a choice between two terrible candidates, which do you choose? Neither one even remotely represents himself to be aligned with what I think should happen. In all reality, there isn't that much difference between them. Obama continued a fair few republican policies, which I disagreed with when Bush was president. I voted for Obama so that those policies would NOT be continued. Sure fooled me huh? Granted, I do NOT care for the direction the republican party wants to take this country. Their seemingly firm belief that trickle down economics is the answer to our economic woes, flies in the face of reality, where those same policies have done NOTHING good for the economy in the past. Why should we believe that it will be any different this time? Are we really that stupid? (I would like to think not, but, given the american voting publics track record....... well.... let's just say it doesn't inspire confidence.....) And, in typical politician fashion, during an election cycle, it's all about the economy, and all their grand ideas for solving americans troubles. Funny how all that goes out the window the day after the election... then it's back to business as usual, and the screwing of the average american. We have a lower standard of living, fewer rights, more intrusions into our daily lives at the hands of government than we did even back when Bush was in office. This is a trend I see continuing all in the name of "the war on terror". Ok, lemme ask ya this: If the terrorist stated goal is to destroy our way of life, why is it, we are letting our government do it to us, in the name of fighting the same goal? I really wish the american public would wake up, smell the coffee, and get control of the country back from the bought and paid for politicos that run the dog and pony show now. I am not holding my breath on that though. It is going to take some MAJOR catastrophe before the american public actually deigns to get off their collective duff, and DO something.

Yeah, design by committee, NONE of whose members had flown more than a paper airplane..... (I haven't seen any paper helicopters..... <img src="http://forums.nexusmods.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/biggrin.gif" class="bbc_emoticon" alt=":D">)<br><br>The F-35 introduces some interesting technology, but, being a multi-role fighter, it is a flying compromise. The F-22, which has been canceled now??? Was a dedicated air superiority fighter, FAR better at it's role in air combat. There seems to be some debate on if the electronic doo-dads in the F-35 can actually make the aircraft the equal of the F-22 in air combat. At a distance, perhaps, but, when it gets up close and personal, the F-35 isn't going to stand a chance against its more maneuverable opponents.....

I will believe a corporation deserves the same rights as an individual when Texas executes one. Corporations don't need to vote, they just buy the politicians. Better than having votes. The campaign contributors have more control over who runs, and who wins, than the voters. The Supreme court made a terrible mistake with Citizens United. Even now, there are challenges to that ruling, tough I really don't expect any of them to make any headway. It was too popular a decision for the corporations, and the politicians, and makes way too much money available for campaigns, and pocket lining, to be overturned. A corporation is a business entity. That's it. It should NOT have the same rights, if not more... than the average citizen.

From an article here: Appears that the F-35 isn't all it's cracked up to be..... and not as capable as some of our current fighters. Of course, here is a project brought to you by the same folks that thought the V-22 was a good idea, even when it had a record of NOT meeting some of the specified design parameters, and the promises of the folks building it.

What they say, and what the do, are two entirely different things. They try telling us that "Its for the good of the nation." But, what they REALLY mean is: "It'll put more money in my pocket."

Too many chefs spoil the broth......

Parachutes. That would probably work rather well..... The enemy soldiers would look up, see bears with parachutes, and wouldn't believe their eyes, till the bears were on the ground, and tossing bodies about. Sure would get my attention.....

Not to mention that it seems to be one of our favorite passtimes, to the point that we spend billions of dollars per year trying to find better ways to kill our fellow man.......

Corporate lobbying isn't paid with taxpayer dollars, the GSA mess is. Don't want corporations legally allowed to lobby? Stop assessing taxes against them and they won't have any need to be represented in Congress as distinct entities. I don't really care who lobby's, I don't have an issue with that. What I object to, is them getting PAID for it. Considering that the bulk of the lobbyists that have the most influence are ex-members of congress/senators, they are now making millions of years button-holing their buds, to get laws passed that help some special interest or other.... If that isn't influence peddling, what is? Being able to basically buy whatever legislation you want is NOT what the lobbyists intended purpose was. All that does is assure that if you have enough money, you can get whatever you want passed. Doesn't matter if it is good or bad for america as a whole......

5 billion per year from the buffet rule wouldn't even be a drop in the bucket......We give that much to Israel every year. And more. Iraq gets twice that. Pakistan is pretty close too......

strangely enough that is a US Federal Crime edit for clarity -> a husband opening mail addressed to a wife is questionable but an employer opening main addressed to an employee (even at work) is expressly a Federal crime I fail to see the difference in e-mail..... laws need to catch up with the times. :D

Considering some of the things they have made into movies, not sure just how much of a vote that really is any more....