Who should be sacrificed for the common good?

[M14 Shooter]

OK, so why don't we prosecute public officials who don't pay their taxes?
And why don't we prosecute our own immigration laws?
Why are laws on the books ignored?

You ddin't answer my question.

Dude, you are dead wrong.

No. I am -absolutely- right.

"...That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."

Governemnt exists to protect/secure the rights of the people, not impose someone's subjective version of morality upon them - imposition of a subjective morality is exactly what the government is NOT supposed to do.

I didn't answer your question because I had already proven you dead wrong and yet you refuse to admit it.

You haven't -proven- a thing regarding yoru argument, nor have you effectively addressed the argument presented to you - and your refusal to answer the question is nothing more than atttept to not have to address something that works to -dis-prove your argument.

So...
-If you are right, then why aren't all things immoral also illegal?
-How have you failed to learn that givernment exists to protect the rights of its people, with all of its criminal laws aimed to that end?
-Where did you get the idea that government exists to force some subjective form of moral behavior on its people?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I will repeat that for the thinking impaired:
YES! it is worse than, it is terrorism! It targets a whole race at once not just the immediate victim.

Speaking of the thinking impaired...
You do not bolster your argument when you make new and novel definitions for words...

Terrorism:
Practical defintion:
-the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
Terrorism | Define Terrorism at Dictionary.com

According to US law
(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
U.S. Law Definition of Terrorism

Thus, to be a terrorist act, an act must be at attempt to incite fear pursuant to a political goal.

Two dumbass rednecks hitching some black/gay guy to the bumper pf their truck and dragging him does the road doesnt qualify.

 

[rdean]

Is America Burning - a Forum To Discuss Issues: Teen Hate Crimes Victim Commits Suicide

"Tuck and Turner dragged Ritcheson, who was Hispanic, into the backyard, where they taunted him with racial slurs, punched and kicked him in the head and burned him 17 times with cigarettes. They tried to carve a swastika into his chest."

They beat him with the patio umbrella stand then forced it into his rectum and repeatedly kicked the end of it to drive it further into his body, tearing his intestines and internal organs. He required 30 surgeries trying to repair the damage and still had to wear a colostomy bag (where the intestine is brought to the outside of the abdomen and feces are discharged into a plastic bag.) He not only suffered the horrific physical injuries but the humiliation of everyone knowing the details of his assault, the stares, whispers, outright questions, public scrutiny, media spotlights, 2 public trials of his attackers, an appearance in Washington and terrible psychological trauma. In spite of the fact that his attackers admitted shouting "white power" and using racial slurs during the attack, the crime was not prosecuted as a hate crime. ]

His attackers poured bleach on his face and body and left him for dead.

Dumb-asses don't know "real" torture.

The boy, after 30 surgeries, eventually committed suicide. His torture was so severe, the physiological scars so painful, he took his own life. But because he survived the initial attack, dumb fuck right wingers say, "But it was just a case of assault". They have laws for that.

 

[The Rabbi]

YES! it is worse than, it is terrorism! It targets a whole race at once not just the immediate victim.

Imagine if women were hung from trees just to keep them "in their place" barefoot, pregnant and subservient to their husband masters.

Imagine if everytime some uppity woman strayed from her second class role that she was made an example for the rest of her sex that she needs to stay in line, OR ELSE.

Are you smoking something? That is quite a fantasy you're spinning.
It is not terrorism. It is a crime. Period. Otherwise everything is terrorism because victims of crime always are terrified.
Sheesh.

I will repeat that for the thinking impaired:

YES! it is worse than, it is terrorism! It targets a whole race at once not just the immediate victim.

Imagine if women were hung from trees just to keep them "in their place" barefoot, pregnant and subservient to their husband masters.

Imagine if everytime some uppity woman strayed from her second class role that she was made an example for the rest of her sex that she needs to stay in line, OR ELSE.

Do these things actually happen? No, they do not actually happen Thus they are fantasies of yours.
If someone mugs the American citizen down the street, is that terrorism? Are all American citizens targeted?
Your powers of thought are down the drain, dude.

 

[loosecannon]

You ddin't answer my question.


No. I am -absolutely- right.

"...That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."

Governemnt exists to protect/secure the rights of the people, not impose someone's subjective version of morality upon them - imposition of a subjective morality is exactly what the government is NOT supposed to do.

I didn't answer your question because I had already proven you dead wrong and yet you refuse to admit it.

You haven't -proven- a thing regarding yoru argument, nor have you effectively addressed the argument presented to you - and your refusal to answer the question is nothing more than atttept to not have to address something that works to -dis-prove your argument.

So...
-If you are right, then why aren't all things immoral also illegal?

There is no such thing as an immoral thing. Only a moral judgment makes something immoral. Just like a moral judgment makes a small street burglary more offensive than a white collar crime that yields $50 billion.

-Where did you get the idea that government exists to force some subjective form of moral behavior on its people?

I never "got" that idea, it's your idea and like all of your ideas it is the product of complete confusion.

-How have you failed to learn that givernment exists to protect the rights of its people, with all of its criminal laws aimed to that end?

probably because that is a myth propagated by folks who have no idea how government came to exist or why it continues to exist.

It isn't an absolute but a far more true assessment would be that government exists to protect the rights of the privileged from the inevitable clawback exacted by those who aren't.

But again that is only a slightly more evolved pov than your cave man thinking.

I might remind your primitive ass that OUR government came into existence to preserve the rights of white, male slaveholders to be free from the tribute they had to pay to their monarchs.

 

[loosecannon]

Are you smoking something? That is quite a fantasy you're spinning.
It is not terrorism. It is a crime. Period. Otherwise everything is terrorism because victims of crime always are terrified.
Sheesh.

I will repeat that for the thinking impaired:

YES! it is worse than, it is terrorism! It targets a whole race at once not just the immediate victim.

Imagine if women were hung from trees just to keep them "in their place" barefoot, pregnant and subservient to their husband masters.

Imagine if everytime some uppity woman strayed from her second class role that she was made an example for the rest of her sex that she needs to stay in line, OR ELSE.

Do these things actually happen? No, they do not actually happen Thus they are fantasies of yours.
If someone mugs the American citizen down the street, is that terrorism? Are all American citizens targeted?
Your powers of thought are down the drain, dude.

idiot, I was debating somebody who said that lynching black people was no different than merely shooting a black person in a robbery.

Because that person was a woman I decided to help her get it by personalizing it and re enacting the same scenario with women being hung to keep them in their place rather than nigroes being hung to keep them in their place.

Wake up before you embarrass yourself.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I didn't answer your question because I had already proven you dead wrong and yet you refuse to admit it.

You haven't -proven- a thing regarding yoru argument, nor have you effectively addressed the argument presented to you - and your refusal to answer the question is nothing more than atttept to not have to address something that works to -dis-prove your argument.
So...
-If you are right, then why aren't all things immoral also illegal?

There is no such thing as an immoral thing.

Thus, your entire argument fails.
That was easy.

 

[Contumacious]

Who should be sacrificed for the common good?

HUH?

W T F?

First, let's define "common good".

And then id then constitutional (1787) proviso which authorizes "sacrifices".

.

 

[mdn2000]

Workers who work around unsafe conditions?

People who are exposed to carcinogens?

People with respiratory trouble?


Who else should be sacrificed by getting rid of "job killing regulations?" Feel free to suggest your own

First and foremost, the elimination of a regulation does not mean people will be forced to sacrifice life for work.

To answer the question, first the Lawyers should sacrifice or anyone with an education as a Lawyer, that takes care of a whole lot of politicians.

Second anyone working for the Government in any way must sacrifice.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Hate crime laws protect ALL Americans.

Really? How does extra-harsh sentencing for killing - for example - a black person protect white people? How does extra-harsh sentencing for killing homosexuals protect straight people?

Sorry, but I've evolved out of the belief that some people are more valuable and important than others. I think the loss of EVERY life should be punished to the maximum extent possible, and ALL harm done to other human beings is heinous and disgusting, regardless of why.

When a black man in the old south was killed as an example to all blacks, fear and hatred was spread to all blacks in the town. The victim of a hate crime is not just the individual but all members of the hated group. It is a more heinous crime and should be punished more severely.

As opposed to the times when a person is killed just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and fear spreads to EVERYONE in the community? The victims of ANY crime would be not just the individual OR members of a selected "hated" group, but society in general, which is why ALL murders are equally heinous, not just those that upset the special interest group du jour.

Consider this post to be an answer to anyone who wants to hand me this rationalization for implementing the Mental Hygiene Police against un-PC thoughts and motives., because I have no intention of answering this over and over.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Gotta love it.

Conservatives are all about deregulation..until one of their own family gets hurt.

Then they get all Liberal...

....To go-along with their socialist-tendencies.....​

"Medicare Part D was passed in 2003 under President George Bush as part of the Medicare Modernization Act and took effect on Jan. 1, 2006.

Approximately 75 percent of drug coverage is financed by the federal government and 25 percent by beneficiaries through monthly premiums, co-payments, co-insurance and deductibles. As opposed to traditional Medicare, in which the government directly pays providers for services, Part D coverage is privatized--meaning government tax-payer funds and contributions from beneficiaries are passed on to private insurers to manage benefits.

Instead of the government negotiating prices with drug companies, price controls are left up to the market, which critics argue makes the prices and the program overall too expensive."

$$$$​

"One of the most problematic issues with Part D, Severance said, is the fact that legislators wrote into the rules that Medicare cannot negotiate with drug companies for lower prices. “Who ever heard of such a thing?” he said, noting that rule flies in the face of how the federal government negotiates lower prescription prices for the VA.

Allowing drug companies to set their own prices comes out of the strong campaign contributions and lobbying by the pharmaceutical industry, Severance said, noting between 1999 and 2004, campaign contributions from drug companies totaled $46.9 million, according to Citizens for Responsible Government. Drugs purchased from Canada or the European Union run one-half or less of U.S.-purchased meds, he said."

 

[anuthervoice]

dammmmit,
what was the question?

 

[Harry Dresden]

If you think people should sacrifice for the common good, wouldnt a good place be to start with yourself?

And if you think that ending Unconstitutional regulations is going to hurt anyone but the corrupt, then you need to read more.

what makes safety regulations unconstitutional?

It appears that just about anything the right wingers do not like is unconstitutional.

you can also say that....just about anything the Left Wingers LIKE ...they think should be in the Constitution....
and you can play both ways....i have seen enough people here from the left who dont like the 2nd amendment.....and have said it is no longer applicable to this time period....

 

[frazzledgear]

Workers who work around unsafe conditions?

People who are exposed to carcinogens?

People with respiratory trouble?


Who else should be sacrificed by getting rid of "job killing regulations?" Feel free to suggest your own

It isn't the fact regulations exist that makes them job killers but the way in which they are written and imposed. Most people would not quibble about the desire to provide protections -it is the fact those writing these laws haven't a clue how to write them to achieve that specific goal but without resulting in unintended and very undesirable consequences!

Most regulations do not and cannot make you one iota safer because of this and only end up making it more difficult for business to do business. Regulations that are reactive instead of proactive are actually pretty useless but reactive regulations account for the bulk of them. Regulations that exist primarily to give more bureaucrats a job with more ability to play little dictator with greater and greater levels of unaccounted for and uncalled for power -does nothing but make the things you buy more expensive. But they won't make you any safer.

So the question isn't yours which stupidly assume a phony pretense that the vast majority of regulations make us all safer when the bulk of them do no such thing and is provably false. You are one of the naive who assumes a level of efficiency and productivity for government bureaucrats that does not and has never existed! Of all entities, government is one of the most INEFFICIENT and UNPRODUCTIVE. Think license bureau employees on steroids but without their "charm" and you would be closer to reality when it comes to government bureaucrats wielding the power of enforcing a nonstop increase in government regulations.

The REAL problem with regulations is that when it turns out the newest onslaught of another 1500 page of new regulations doesn't accomplish any of the intended goals of the those who authored and put it into practice and what is far more likely, ends up causing even MORE problems than it was trying to solve -their answer is NEVER to re-visit and throw out the regulations that didn't work, didn't accomplish anything constructive whatsoever, did nothing but further interfere with the ability of companies to do business, expand and hire more employees or made things even worse. Government's ONLY response to seeing failure of government bureaucracy is to add MORE bureaucratic levels and layers to the already existing mess and do so to the point it has caused an incomprehensible pile of crap!

If you were to ask business owners which government regulations they thought were the worst regulations -do you seriously believe they would point to ones that effectively protect us as either consumers or employees? Right off the top let's stop your absolutely silly pretense that companies WANT to inflict bad, poisonous and dangerous products on the public because people like you like to pretend businesses believe selling that kind of product would be a surefire moneymaker for them! (China's poison toys are the result of their government's decisions -not those of a private business and has happened so many times now I believe it was a deliberate act. They sure managed not to sell any of those poisoned toys to their OWN children. Protection from overt and covert hostile acts of a foreign government I absolutely expect from my government.) But who do you think are REALLY the best people to actually write a law intended to provide a very specific kind of protection without resulting in a slew of unwanted and unintended consequences? It isn't government hacks or politicians, most of whom haven't a clue what it takes to run a business or what it takes to try and meet a payroll each and every time!

For example and a PERFECT case in point: the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. This law was crafted for the purpose of trying to prevent any more poisonous toys coming into the country from China which is not the least bit adverse to deliberately selling poisonous toys to our children and has happened repeatedly now showing it is unlikely to be "accidental" rather than deliberate. (Again, a government decision, not that of a private business which don't exist when it comes to international trade in China.) But because those who couldn't cut it in the private sector but love the power of government regulation are the ones writing these laws, the result was such a poorly written, overly broad and generalized law that massively increased government power and regulation -that it would have actually driven everyone who is a crafter doing business out of their home -out of business entirely because they cannot afford to comply with it. A huge outcry before the law was to go in effect resulted in a TEMPORARY stay for home crafters but it is temporary. So unless something is done before this exception expires later this year - expect to see a bunch of empty booths at your next local or state fair -and eventually watch the state fair itself go the way of the dinosaur! Who is really protected by driving people out of business who make their living by selling their homemade crafts? When was the last time you heard about a "dangerous" handmade appliqued T-shirt causing harm to someone? Seriously.

A law intended to protect kids from China's poison toys but will actually drive home crafters out of business entirely is NOT worth the cost of this BADLY WRITTEN piece of crap regulation, sorry! But the assholes who concocted it won't scrap it and try to design a better, more narrowly and specifically written law and will try to expand it on top of this already existing piece of crap law! THAT is how government works because THAT is actually "government mentality" and is the nature of government which says "whatever is wrong will always require MORE government, MORE laws, MORE regulation -never less!" If you believe that to be true too, I think you'd be a perfect fit at the license bureau! But pick someone with actual business experience instead of another government bureaucrat monkey who couldn't cut it in the private sector -and I bet they can figure out how to write a law that keeps China's poison toys in China without killing an entire industry in our own country!

By the way, the notion that businesses are so "predatory" and would gladly sell us all dangerous and bad things as some kind of sure fire moneymaker for them and their evil is such it requires an ever increasing level of government oversight and interference - is ridiculous, but THE favorite picture the left loves to paint of businesses. Businesses, like government are run by PEOPLE and I hope you aren't silly enough to believe that bad people are attracted to business while the good and most intelligent people are attracted to government service! First of all the average level of intelligence of those in government whether elected or a bureaucrat -is no different from the average level of intelligence of the public at large. Meaning they aren't one bit better and smarter than everyone else -but they sure as hell are far more likely to be power hungry egomaniacs!

Competition is one of the best means of regulating MOST bad and dangerous practices because a high rate of injuries/deaths of your employees or selling dangerous, defective and poorly designed products is a surefire way of being driven out of business entirely. It is possible to design specific laws intended to accomplish very specific goals in order to provide the best solution for VERY SPECIFIC PROBLEMS. But the problem is most regulations aren't written to do that and instead are written with as broad a brush as possible. And that is why most of them end up being nothing but make work laws that cost a business time and money they will just pass on to consumers to satisfy some government hack's paperwork -but doesn't make anyone one bit safer either as a consumer or employee -and just ends up doing more harm than any possible good they were intended to do.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Really? How does extra-harsh sentencing for killing - for example - a black person protect white people? How does extra-harsh sentencing for killing homosexuals protect straight people?

Sorry, but I've evolved out of the belief that some people are more valuable and important than others. I think the loss of EVERY life should be punished to the maximum extent possible, and ALL harm done to other human beings is heinous and disgusting, regardless of why.

Ditto.

Murder is murder no matter the reason.

Beating the shit out of someone is Assault and Battery no matter the reason.

I never could understand why anything is a hate crime. Jeeze. Talk about stupid.

John Roll - Judgepedia Warning Graphic Image.

oh christ.....and if those guys hanging were white....those who did the hanging should get the max sentencing possible....skin color should have no consequence on the sentencing....you cold bloodily kill someone ...no matter what the reason or what you say while killing the person.....YOU GET THE MAXIMUM SENTANCE.....PERIOD.....and you serve every fucking minute of it......no getting off for good behavior....Violent people should treated accordingly....

 

[Intense]

Workers who work around unsafe conditions?

People who are exposed to carcinogens?

People with respiratory trouble?


Who else should be sacrificed by getting rid of "job killing regulations?" Feel free to suggest your own

you'll do

What He Said.

 

[Harry Dresden]

actually they will. And yes there is a difference, the lynching is terrorism, the robbery is robbery.

Are they going to execute him twice???

Will he die in jail more than once with a lifetime sentence??

Seems rather silly to me.

typically murder carries a 7 year sentence in the US.

Terrorism and hate crimes carry additional terms.

and there is your problem.....7 years....if you cold bloodily kill someone if you DONT get the death penalty.....you should be serving life in prison....with no parole....and i dont give a shit if it was racial or just a random robbery and the victim was killed.....Cold blooded murder.....you throw away the key....

 

[Harry Dresden]

When a black man in the old south was killed as an example to all blacks, fear and hatred was spread to all blacks in the town. The victim of a hate crime is not just the individual but all members of the hated group. It is a more heinous crime and should be punished more severely.

no he should not.....he should get the max sentence possible,which if not death is life in prison.....the same if he killed some white guy .....so if i shoot some black person and call him a ****** before i shoot him....i should get a heavier sentence than if i just walked up to him and shot him without saying anything?.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

True. The idea, I suppose, is that it's extra-heinous and awful to kill someone "just" because of their skin color or whatever, but when I think about it, it seems just as heinous and awful to end someone's life for the money in his or her wallet. Either way, you're saying that that life has no more value than the petty, trivial (to me, at least) motivation.

No, the idea is that hate crimes are terrorism.

bullshit....if you can kill ANYONE purposely....you must be a hateful person....but yet to some....the killer only is a rat bastard when he kills a minority......Gangs do Terrorism every dam day....why is that never called Terrorism when it is one of the best examples of it?....

 

[mdn2000]

Sacrifice 90% of the government from city to federal. Courts, everything. I know, what about the courts, with the death penalty enforced for everything from simple rape, to kidnapping, even breaking and entering someones home I expect we will not need lawyers. We will have to make lawyers prove a crime has been committed before we allow them to shut down entire industries like our ability to have cheap electricity.

Government and Lawyers, would anyone miss them, seriously, I cannot see how anyone would miss either "party", why are they called parties, they suck, the should be called Wakes.

Get rid of the Lawyers and Government. That is the only thing I have not seen in my life, I have seen democrat control, republican control, both sucked, time to take away both parties control. Take away the governments power.

Its that simple, hear anyone saying it.