magley64

We can discuss what is or is not cruel, but the question was asked "why not?"

I believe you're incorrect... The judge decides how the sentence will be carried out... Or am I wrong about that? (i'm not a legal major, but that is the way I've always understood it) The judge declares if jail sentences will be served concurrently or consecutively, the mode of death for death penalty convicts.. etc...

It's a jury of your peers, not a jury of people who would feel strongest about your crimes...

It doesn't matter what he feels is cruel or unusual, it matters what a judge/jury feels is cruel or unusual.

that's exactly what it is... would you not say that a punishment that is not humane would be by definition "cruel"?

While I can sympathize with your appeal to emotion, the constitution remains... you can't declare it an iron clad contract with the American people on one occasion, and a dismissible bit of red tape in another.

yeah cause fuck the constitution unless it's the second amendment. The eighth doesn't matter...

reminds me of "law abiding citizen"

It is an enormous undertaking, and it should have been handled better, but the fact remains that the exchanges work in the states that started them.

Then why do you keep calling yourself a sinner?Death doesn't make life any less spectacular. If it makes you feel better to believe that all of your loved ones that have passed are waiting for you on the other side of a celestial wall, that's fine. I just try to look at things more realistically. My best friend from college died last week. It sucks, and I'll miss him, but my missing him doesn't change the fact that he's dead, and all the things that made him who he was are now no longer alive. His genes live on in his daughters, and his memory lives in those (like myself) that he had an effect on. That's enough for me. I won't ever forget him, so I don't need a ghost version of him floating in the clouds somewhere.

Does california have this problem? Does new york? Virginia? It would be nice if the federal exchange website worked as well as everyone wants it to, but it wasn't designed to be the exchange for the whole country. The law was written with the expectation that states would pull their own weight on the exchanges.

no, no no that's socialism, the republicans were not going to have any of that... you do realize that obamacare is working in california, new york, idaho, kentucky, massachussets, rhode island, DC, maryland, vermont, colorado, new mexico, nevada... All the states that set up their own state exchanges are working wonderfully. Not flawlessly, but far and above "working". If ohio had their own exchange, you'd have little to bitch about. Now Kasich did expand medicaid per the new obamacare limits. (you people bitching about "free" healthcare, there you go.) Why not set up an exchange to service the new insurance needs of "middle class" ohioans? Why should we all have to rely on the federal site for a health insurance exchange?

So where do you tell evolution to stop? "okay evolution, you can change 4000 genes, but after that you have to defer to God, and under no circumstances can you change any genes that would require we re-classify an organism into a new species" Evolution is the one elegant explanation for the diversity and complexity of life on this planet. And there is lots of evidence of it if you look. Nothing's perfect, just well adapted to it's environment. No, during the dark ages, the church took over. squashed art and culture that they felt didn't align with their "christian" faith. What questions will "man" never answer? we've gotten pretty far so far, what question do you have that your religion sufficiently answers that science cannot? Of course he hasn't, he doesn't exist. He's a character in an old book, plagiarized from other old books. The cat in the hat has not failed man either. If you believe that, who created us with that "nature"? Why didn't he create us better? Why not make us so that we were grateful, and peaceful? If your claim is that he created everyone and everything, then the buck stops there. it's his fault, he's the omniscient, omnipotent one. He knew exactly what he was doing and set you up to fail. You have an awfully negative view of yourself. Perhaps some therapy, or positivity training would help you. My view of myself is much more optomistic. I was born to 2 loving parents who did the best they could. I've grown up to be a pretty good person. I take care of those that I love. I help those around me that are in need of help. I do my best to improve the lives of people I meet, and learn what i can along the way. I'm pretty happy with the person I am now. I simply refuse to accept your assertion, and the assertions of many of your religion's priests that I am somehow fatally flawed from birth. My attitude is: If I'm not "good" enough for you, what makes you think I want to join your little club? Heaven/Hell? Imaginary, post mortem stick and carrot...

Again, you're making the classic blunder of conflating evolution, abiogenesis, and the big bang theory.You want proof of evolution? Feel free to visit any natural history museum in the country, they can show you thousands of fossils. 3 separate answers for 3 separate questions. And none of those theories require "belief". I support them, based on my understanding, until a better solution comes along... but "magical sky fairy" isn't the answer. Not everything can be explained with logic and proven by science YET... key word, YET. But thanks to science, we understand way more every single day... Remember when religion ruled the world? Those were called the dark ages..

Bertrand Russel In 1958, Russell elaborated on the analogy as a reason for his own atheism: I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.[2] To sum up: If you make a claim that is fantastic, absurd or unbelievable, it's the correct response for me to be skeptical. It's not my job to prove you wrong, it's your job to prove you right. "a magical sky fairy made everyone and everything, then later impregnated a bronze age goat herder who gives birth to him ala "i'm my own father" then sacrifices himself 30 years later to appease his own pre-birth wrath, and then ressurects himself 3 random days later and floats into the sky like a dirigible" is pretty fantastic, absurd, and unbelievable...

look at the bright side, no kickstands required...

yeah, it's a shit situation all around.

well written...

Isis, is also known as Isis-Mari http://allthingssekhmet.com/?p=12 I understand not wanting to look into it any further...would be a tragedy to study a religion that predates your own and find that much of yours was plagiarized. Could be enough to cause a "crisis of faith".

more info... http://news.yahoo.com/california-cops-mistaken-fatal-shooting-boy-unfolded-seconds-053109259.html

How is this different from the other 1199's? (aside from the knobby tires)

Wait, You're a girl?

Just a guess here, bit I'm going with: To make them look more realistic... to give the illusion that he was seriously "strapped". Nowhere near enough information, but it's a shitty situation all around.

No argument here...but his age doesn't change how deadly a gun is.