Black Wolf

Sorry if there is already a thread about this, I searched "parole" and couldn't find anything. Is there any reason to keep "parole"? If you have been convicted of a crime, should you - Serve the entire sentence, unless you're good the entire time - Serve the entire sentence, and if you're good, you simply do not prolong your sentence. If the choice were as simple as that, I would pick the latter. But it isn't that simple in our current system. In our current system, you can: - Get an education - Give lectures Here, this guy has not only been abstained from violence, but he has displayed benevolent behavior Should parole be kept? Or is it okay to get rid of it.

It doesn't seem to me like the person is literally saying he'll deny treatment if you voted for Obama's health care plan. It seems like he was saying "I'm not doing this anymore, period, and you can thank Obama supporters" I could be wrong, though. I think it would be kinda stupid to deny people urologic care for that, there's probably some law that prevents you from doing that.

So , we're planning something along the lines of the Netherlands?

Imagine the field day Republicans are having. "Obama is a Muslim Marxist Nazi Pacifist"

Semi-related to this thread: It's worth noting that when our forefathers spoke ill of corporations, they were not referring to the corporations of today, ie: corporations that you may voluntarily trade with. They were referring to feudal corporations, ie: feudalism. This is a heads up for those of you who had to deal with liberals who try to interpret our forefather's intellectual product in a way that makes it seem like they're actually pushing for their ideas. EDIT: I'm sorry, this isn't related to the thread at all. What would we have to do? The easiest thing I can think of would be passing a law that would automatically nullify any bills that are over 1,00 pages in length.

I was exaggerating when I said that was the best you could hope for in Europe. I've given you answers, you just don't seem to like them. Well, my comment was directed at the OP, who is a resident of the U.S., and my advice was specific to HIM not to move somewhere else. That was the point. If you're not a resident of the United States, and you're comfortable living wherever you do, good for you. But don't come into this thread pretending as if my advice applies to you. I'm not accepting anything. If I wanted to respond to your question, I would have.

I support relocative universal health care.

But why leave this country if there is no trade-off? When you use Europe as an alternative to the United States, I would assume that you are suggesting there is a trade-off, ie., that there is something better than the United States. If the standards for your choice of country are simply not getting shot at or being forced to wear a burqa, that's one thing. But it's only reasonable to flee a country if there is some sort of trade-off. What is the net benefit? But how is Europe any better than this? And what do you mean by "living on borrowed past liberties"? If you're going to be fussy about the semantics, then just refer to the bolded.

Er, never mind that. Sorry, I forgot all about Germany banning paintball, France banning the Burqa, and other things like that. Yeah, I can't really think of a single reason why one would would leave the United States to go to Europe. Greece is failing, the Euro is doomed, and censorship is increasing more and more

Is this an April Fool's joke? No, but America is the closest thing to it. I just did - Not blindly agreeing to Kyoto Protocol, not making the assumption that universal health care is some sort of landmark that an industrialized nation has to achieve, etc.

Well, yeah. And even if Rockefeller did become a monopoly, Oil and kerosene would only be good for so much until they found an alternative fuel Which we probably would have if everyone put the same energy they did to "break" up trusts.

Seriously, this is the problem. When our forefathers fought for this country, they said "GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH". Now, we're just like "Give me liberty or else I'm leaving!". If you want liberty, stay and fight! If America falls to statism and dictatorship, where are you going to go? Europe? Their political freedoms are great, but they've given up on laissez-faire economics. Asia? They're moving more and more towards laissez-faire, but there is no freedom of speech, right to vote, or any similarity to Anglo-Saxon law. America is our last hope for sanity, like it or not. If we participate in the Kyoto Protocol, then science is truly dead. If we let Obama get away with his health care plan, then Constitutional morality is dead. Don't leave this country.

This actually seems to me like an argument against determinism, if anything (not that I'm suggesting that it is in favor of it). If our minds can be manipulated by magnets, then were our minds really "Determined" for any destiny?

I posted that article for the benefit of the the thread. I felt that the more anti-Rand articles are brought to attention, the more we understand what we're up against. Were there any questions I had about the article? No, none in particular. I have noticed that the writer of this article says "Instead of bailing the companies out, break them up" as if the two are somehow mutually exclusive, or as if the former is somehow something Ayn Rand was in favor of.

If we buy a small country out, I'm all for it. Oh but wait lol if there's any gold on that land we have to report it to the state lol.

They murdered AGW? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100330/ap_on_..._hacked_e_mails Not according to this person. Clearly, they "just" discarded evidence contradictory to their claim. They didn't lie, as if that matters.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/23/19...6745/219/605923 More Anti-Rand crap

Damn, you got me. Reality: 1 Jokes: 0

"I have enough time and resources to go online and get into heated arguments with people while declaring my self-righteousness, but I don't have enough time to maybe acquire more income"

Second of all, 53 billion < 460 000 million (which would be 460 billion, I would have to presume). Politely tell them that if this basic mathematics is so hard for them, that they probably shouldn't be judging who can afford to give what.

Actually, jews were asked not to light menorahs anymore because of this. Environmentalism leads to anti-semitism

Then "their" is truly no justice? Well, if you don't need reason as an epistemology, I suppose you don't need proper grammar either. Yeah, it wasn't so much that I couldn't recognize the inherent flaw in this picture.. it's that there were so many flaws I wasn't sure exactly where to start. But yes, when people ask me about my religion, and I tell them I don't have one, they're just like "Oh so you believe we came from, like, nothing?" I never have a response other than like "Uh.. yeah." Hahahaha, atheism says rape, robbery, murder, torutre, pedophilia, and lying is acceptable? Funny, that doesn't seem to be a problem for Christians either.

To those of you who are purposely consuming more to send a message of anti-environmentalism, stop doing that. The people participating in Earth Hour are doing a bang up job of condeming the environment on their own, they don't need your help. Shutting off all of your appliances for one hour will cause more power consumption at the end of said hour as all of your appliances, such as refrigerators, come back online. If all of businesses and residences shut off their power for that one hour and then turned it all on at the same time, there's a good chance the grid could be overloaded. Face it, you know environmentalists were just staring at the clock waiting to turn it off.

I totally heard nothing about Earth Hour until I went to Whole Foods today. Whatever. I didn't participate in Earth Hour.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/25/will...erhaul_actually Okay. So let's say you're capable of lifting 400 pounds. But before you can enjoy your life, the government decides that they can hit you on the legs with a sledgehammer. This is basically the concern here: That banks are "largely" unregulated if they're 20 times the size of the US economy. They're right, it's probably not regulated. It's more like "protected". They're too big to fail, because we've decided that they were. When you decide that a certain thing is a right, you have decided they're "too big to fail", and thus, they can never fail. They can never learn from their mistakes.