It's okay for the government to pay to kill people.
But it's not okay for the government to pay to keep them alive.
But it's not okay for the government to pay to keep them alive.
What's the point of keeping him alive? Is he going to be a productive member of society one day? No. Is he ever going to achieve freedom? No. So why would you as a taxpaying member of society want to feed and clothe him for the next fifty years? So you can feel like you don't have blood on your hands? What's the difference if he dies tomorrow or in fifty years? There is none, except the latter permits the off chance that he finds some happiness in this world. After what he did, he deserves no happiness.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
It's okay for the government to pay to kill people.
But it's not okay for the government to pay to keep them alive.
...in a world with 57 states and a dead Bin Laden...13rin wrote:
Awesome sig Barry O... Too bad its 2011... sigh.
We do both and I'm fine with both - to an extent. My opinion on the death penalty has been consistent.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
It's okay for the government to pay to kill people.
But it's not okay for the government to pay to keep them alive.
Nah, to marxists, everyone is valued for their pulseeleven bravo wrote:
jay really? human life is only as valuable as its degree of social productivity? karl marx much?
About the only plus he's got. Not to mention it took him 16 hours to 'sleep on'. Winnar!unnamednewbie13 wrote:
...in a world with 57 states and a dead Bin Laden...
Sauce?Dilbert_X wrote:
The latest from Fox News
"Electric cars will cause marital discord"
Their sponsors are really reaching on this one.
to what point though? is it worth taxpayer money to give a life long drunk a new liver at age 85 for example? or a new heart at age 90?Doctor Strangelove wrote:
It's okay for the government to pay to kill people.
But it's not okay for the government to pay to keep them alive.
im gonna have to keep asking this.....Spark wrote:
Has Sarah Palin seriously called her campaign One Nation?
Christ on a stick.
i dunno. thats what i am asking.Dilbert_X wrote:
Is it worth keeping old people alive?
On average 50% of peoples lifetime medical expenses occur in the last 6 months of their lives.
One Nation has very very strong Australian political overtones. Hint: name of an insanely racist party that cropped up a few years back. Just found it weird, that's all. And mildly ironic.11 Bravo wrote:
im gonna have to keep asking this.....Spark wrote:
Has Sarah Palin seriously called her campaign One Nation?
Christ on a stick.
why do foreigners care so damn much? i mean some interest makes sense but you guys take it to a whole different level. i mean i havent even heard that nor do i really care.
If someone pays into the system all their life then they should be entitled to a new heart at any age.11 Bravo wrote:
to what point though? is it worth taxpayer money to give a life long drunk a new liver at age 85 for example? or a new heart at age 90?Doctor Strangelove wrote:
It's okay for the government to pay to kill people.
But it's not okay for the government to pay to keep them alive.
well i doubt most people out there pay enough into the system to cover the cost of a heart transplant.jord wrote:
If someone pays into the system all their life then they should be entitled to a new heart at any age.11 Bravo wrote:
to what point though? is it worth taxpayer money to give a life long drunk a new liver at age 85 for example? or a new heart at age 90?Doctor Strangelove wrote:
It's okay for the government to pay to kill people.
But it's not okay for the government to pay to keep them alive.
Probably not, no. Principle applies.11 Bravo wrote:
well i doubt most people out there pay enough into the system to cover the cost of a heart transplant.jord wrote:
If someone pays into the system all their life then they should be entitled to a new heart at any age.11 Bravo wrote:
to what point though? is it worth taxpayer money to give a life long drunk a new liver at age 85 for example? or a new heart at age 90?
99% of Americans know jack shit about Aussie politics. One nation over here refers to this part of the pledge of allegiance.Spark wrote:
One Nation has very very strong Australian political overtones. Hint: name of an insanely racist party that cropped up a few years back. Just found it weird, that's all. And mildly ironic.11 Bravo wrote:
im gonna have to keep asking this.....Spark wrote:
Has Sarah Palin seriously called her campaign One Nation?
Christ on a stick.
why do foreigners care so damn much? i mean some interest makes sense but you guys take it to a whole different level. i mean i havent even heard that nor do i really care.
More or less your media is just trying to make something out of nothing."I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."