No, the interest you pay is not taxed, it is counted as a dediction, or in the case of mcc a credit towards your tax. You dont pay extra because of that, you get a rebate... Those are not even close to being analogies.
Fines are something you have to pay for not complying with laws, taxes are compulsory contributions to state revenue.. So based on those definitions which is it, a fine or a tax?
For example is the money you pay a jurisdiction for speeding a fine or a tax?
Says who? If you read the constitution as a grant of power as it was arguably intended than there is an infinite number or rights that we have, just a matter of if we wanna force our government to recognize it. The only things you can factually state people dont have a right to are the things the constitution says they dont have, or grant to the government.
When you have atleast half the country dismissing candidates soley because of their choice of religion it is hard to say our country is governed by reason and pragmatism. It is governed by belief and superstition.
This link gives more details on the support. The support that favored it at that time, the majority only favored it with UN approval, which we did not get. If no UN approval the support drops below 50%, meaning that the majority of Americans did not support invasion at that time.
No, cause very few times will someone who had food robbed form them die. Typically the people being robbed has more than enough to feed them. No where in the argument was it stated that the robber killed the person he robbed. Most robbers dont kill the victim unless he resists.
You are correct, but how many taliban members being killed in afgan are staying out of the fight, and how many are actively initiating the fight with IEDs and suicide bombs or even full on attacks and ambushed? I think you will find a relatively small number of murders compared to killings.
When you join an army you represent the group with their knowledge and consent. If a group attacks us than that group has claimed that our life is not worth theirs and we have the right and moral obligation to defend ourselves in war agains that group. Those in the group that disagree with the group have the right leave the group if they wish, but if they stay and fight than it is killing, not murder.
Life is a right, however even rights can be taken away in specific situations. Your rights to life end when you take another life unjustifiably. No one says they can be revoked at will.
who said killing someone for their food is ok, maybe you should reread the statement before you post? While you are at it read the post I was replying to.
It seems you start out disagreeing, but come to the same conclusion I do, so I am not sure the purpose of this. The people who are simply too dangerous to release and have no chance of rehabilitation are the ones I say deserve to be put down.
No, war is mass killing. Killing and murder are not necessarily the same, however I have no problem for killing bush for the war in Iraq currently. The war in Afgan was originally justified, the Iraq was was not.
I agree with the first, however to me the second is false. Taking my life is a worst penalty, because I will be dead. give me life in prison and I will be at least alive.
The extra cost is in typical appeals, which even people without the death penalty can do but tend not to. They can find a away to lower that cost. The cost of the actual execution is a fraction of the cost to keep someone in prison for life.
Incorrect. Judges determine the law and undisputed facts, even in the case of juries. Juries only judge disputed "facts". Juries can go outside of the law and will typically not be held accountable because of the above, but the judge of a case is like the moderator. He will decide what issues go to the jury and what do not based on the law.
Also incorrect. Juries dont typically do sentencing, again the judge does that. In addition in the few cases they do if the feel capital punishment is unconscionable they also can do life in prison instead. They have options other than a moral obligation to acquit.
Well most non-sociopaths dont want to kill people, therefore we either find sociopaths who have not illegally killed people to do it and hope it does not trigger it a murder binge or we get normal people to do it and try to minimize the trauma to them.
Slashdot Mirror
Neither speeding tickets or the ACA law exists soley for the purpose of generating non-compliance so I am not sure your point.
No, the interest you pay is not taxed, it is counted as a dediction, or in the case of mcc a credit towards your tax. You dont pay extra because of that, you get a rebate... Those are not even close to being analogies.
For example is the money you pay a jurisdiction for speeding a fine or a tax?
Says who? If you read the constitution as a grant of power as it was arguably intended than there is an infinite number or rights that we have, just a matter of if we wanna force our government to recognize it. The only things you can factually state people dont have a right to are the things the constitution says they dont have, or grant to the government.
When you have atleast half the country dismissing candidates soley because of their choice of religion it is hard to say our country is governed by reason and pragmatism. It is governed by belief and superstition.
Living off a credit card has been happening since Bush, technically most of the recent POTUS except maybe Clinton.
This link gives more details on the support. The support that favored it at that time, the majority only favored it with UN approval, which we did not get. If no UN approval the support drops below 50%, meaning that the majority of Americans did not support invasion at that time.
No, cause very few times will someone who had food robbed form them die. Typically the people being robbed has more than enough to feed them. No where in the argument was it stated that the robber killed the person he robbed. Most robbers dont kill the victim unless he resists.
There is also a social cost that is not calculable to allowing them to live, possibly escape and kill again, or just kill again in prison.
You are correct, but how many taliban members being killed in afgan are staying out of the fight, and how many are actively initiating the fight with IEDs and suicide bombs or even full on attacks and ambushed? I think you will find a relatively small number of murders compared to killings.
Yes, while he did not state his source for the information that it costs more to execute, the studies I have seen that support that notion put all the cost on the appeals: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29552692/#.UmqwU1FDuP8 http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42
False, he has between 40 and 60 percent depending on which poll you looked at, therefore he had questionable support. Stop trying to rewrite history.
Thank you, that is what I was trying to say, just not as well.
When you join an army you represent the group with their knowledge and consent. If a group attacks us than that group has claimed that our life is not worth theirs and we have the right and moral obligation to defend ourselves in war agains that group. Those in the group that disagree with the group have the right leave the group if they wish, but if they stay and fight than it is killing, not murder.
Not all the public's approval.
My mistake, sorry
Did you reply to the wrong post?
Life is a right, however even rights can be taken away in specific situations. Your rights to life end when you take another life unjustifiably. No one says they can be revoked at will.
who said killing someone for their food is ok, maybe you should reread the statement before you post? While you are at it read the post I was replying to.
It seems you start out disagreeing, but come to the same conclusion I do, so I am not sure the purpose of this. The people who are simply too dangerous to release and have no chance of rehabilitation are the ones I say deserve to be put down.
No, war is mass killing. Killing and murder are not necessarily the same, however I have no problem for killing bush for the war in Iraq currently. The war in Afgan was originally justified, the Iraq was was not.
I agree with the first, however to me the second is false. Taking my life is a worst penalty, because I will be dead. give me life in prison and I will be at least alive.
The extra cost is in typical appeals, which even people without the death penalty can do but tend not to. They can find a away to lower that cost. The cost of the actual execution is a fraction of the cost to keep someone in prison for life.
Also incorrect. Juries dont typically do sentencing, again the judge does that. In addition in the few cases they do if the feel capital punishment is unconscionable they also can do life in prison instead. They have options other than a moral obligation to acquit.
Well most non-sociopaths dont want to kill people, therefore we either find sociopaths who have not illegally killed people to do it and hope it does not trigger it a murder binge or we get normal people to do it and try to minimize the trauma to them.