I need your help. Please address some issue affecting.....

Post by **gannon** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:16 pm

dman762000, did you even read his post before commenting? Seems to me you either didn't, didn't understand what he stated, or just didn't care about that fact.

vskid · Post by **vskid** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 8:17 pm

bicostp wrote:"Crossover SUVs". It's not an SUV. You can't call something a "truck" if it's built off a unibody. A crossover SUV is nothing more than a minivan with extra plastic and a tow hitch. Hear that, people? Your "Crossover SUV" is a MINIVAN! Of course SUVs in general are big, bulky, and wasteful. Not to mention the Freestyle Hybrid's maximum onboard cargo limit of something like 900 pounds, including passengers...

I feel the same way. Most of the vehicles they label as SUVs and trucks do not deserve it. To me, an SUV/truck is something you can put a lift kit, big tires, and a rollcage (if you're cool) on and take off-roading. You don't have to do that, but it should at least be possible in order to call it a truck of SUV.

Post by **SpongeBuell** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:58 pm

dman762000 wrote:
SpongeBuell wrote:
teraflop122 wrote:We sentence a 60-year-old to 40 years in prison instead of executing him and putting tax-payers' money to better use for a nobler cause.
Actually, with legal fees and the whatnot (they always do what they can to appeal, since their life literally depends on it) it is cheaper to keep a guy in jail for life than to execute him.
you do relize that it takes 100-something thousand dollars a year to keep an inmate alive right but bullets cost less than a dollar a piece

I first heard that from my teacher. Then I googled it, and, tada! First thing I clicked. http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html

teraflop122 · Post by **teraflop122** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:02 pm

I first heard that from my teacher. Then I googled it, and, tada! First thing I clicked. http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html

That article does not demonstrate the cost difference between housing an inmate for life and putting him to death. Housing an inmate for 40 years costs 750,000 dollars, while shooting him costs a few bucks. The costs heaped upon putting a man to death in that article result from inefficiencies within the justice system as it now exists.

At the very least, all criminals should be given the choice between serving their sentence and immediate execution. A human should be given the choice between a dreary non-existence and an immediate release.

Gump-in-space · Post by **Gump-in-space** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:38 pm

My problem is that the entire United States seems to hate their president. I don't want to start a political argument, but it seems like we wanted to do something back in '01 and now that we have and things weren't as good as we hoped everybody wants to blame the government.

Lucretius · Post by **Lucretius** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:35 am

My problem is that people think they can label the world's/nation's/city's/friend's political/social/personal problems in bland little nothing statements like what this thread is calling for, and how people have responded. Huh, go fig...

Guess what! Nothing is remotely black and white. Not anymore. Whatever you think you know/believe, you're probably wrong and would find out if you'd just do some research. Or not. But why risk/bother forming opinions on something you haven't taken the time to research? Seems ridiculous to me...maybe I'm too mature/immature like people tell me.

Extreme_Jesus · Post by **Extreme_Jesus** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:47 am

Lack of Actual government action regarding climate change

lotsa talk and no trousers going on at the moment

vskid · Post by **vskid** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:51 am

Why do restaurants say "No shoes, No shirt, No service"? Does that mean they'll serve me if I have a shirt and shoes on, but no pants?

teraflop122 · Post by **teraflop122** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:19 pm

My problem is that people think they can label the world's/nation's/city's/friend's political/social/personal problems in bland little nothing statements like what this thread is calling for, and how people have responded. Huh, go fig...

So, you would be opposed of the sentence, "Terrorists are killing people," because it is short and to the point? Seriously, what crawled up your leg and died? Everyone forms an opinion on everything from the moment they hear about it, building upon what they already know. There is nothing inherently wrong about summing up a complex subject in a few words.

limpport · Post by **limpport** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:57 pm

vskid wrote:Why do restaurants say "No shoes, No shirt, No service"? Does that mean they'll serve me if I have a shirt and shoes on, but no pants?

Guess what I'm doing on my 18th birthday! ^

Prisoner abuse. Is it justified? Is it ok to send people out of the country to places where torture is legal (Guantanamo)?

vskid · Post by **vskid** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:08 pm

limpport wrote:
vskid wrote:Why do restaurants say "No shoes, No shirt, No service"? Does that mean they'll serve me if I have a shirt and shoes on, but no pants?
Guess what I'm doing on my 18th birthday! ^

Prisoner abuse. Is it justified? Is it ok to send people out of the country to places where torture is legal (Guantanamo)?

I say that it should be ok for murderers, to me they have no rights, they stole another person's life.

When do you turn 18, I want to here they're reaction. And doing it before 18 might be better, because then you're a minor.

dman762000 · Post by **dman762000** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:23 pm

gannon wrote:dman762000, did you even read his post before commenting? Seems to me you either didn't, didn't understand what he stated, or just didn't care about that fact.

actually I did read his comment and if you had read mine you would see that I am not talking about appeals, "humane executions" or any of that other crap, what I am saying is that if someone is found guilty of murder or rape or child molestion(sp?) they should be led out of the courtroom into the yard and shot in the head for being total worthless sacks of excrement that are robbing the rest of us of precious oxygen.

Lucretius · Post by **Lucretius** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:42 pm

teraflop122 wrote:
My problem is that people think they can label the world's/nation's/city's/friend's political/social/personal problems in bland little nothing statements like what this thread is calling for, and how people have responded. Huh, go fig...
So, you would be opposed of the sentence, "Terrorists are killing people," because it is short and to the point? Seriously, what crawled up your leg and died? Everyone forms an opinion on everything from the moment they hear about it, building upon what they already know. There is nothing inherently wrong about summing up a complex subject in a few words.

Huh. Funny you should say that. That very statement.

"Terrorists kill people."

Do they all? Have they all in the past? That sentence can be proved wrong by one instance where a terrorist did not kill someone, which has happened. So what's to be benefitted by saying terrorists kill people? It's wrong, but it's simple! Which means it's good. Right?

What would be the point of saying something short, simple wrong? You see, my point, which you've proved, was that one has to be careful and not just sum up to sum up. Best not to sum up at all. Best to view an issue from all points and adress them all? Or would that be to big and complex for you?

Wait until you're part of the voting public. It'll either smack you in the face that you need to be careful, or you'll be an awful voter.

Seriously, what crawled up your leg, made it's way to your brain and died?

Post by **SpongeBuell** » Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:12 am

limpport wrote:
vskid wrote:Why do restaurants say "No shoes, No shirt, No service"? Does that mean they'll serve me if I have a shirt and shoes on, but no pants?
Guess what I'm doing on my 18th birthday! ^

Prisoner abuse. Is it justified? Is it ok to send people out of the country to places where torture is legal (Guantanamo)?

Since this post covered the same topics I wanted to, I'll respond...

Pants: my friend's friend did that once with a group of friends, including my friend (confused yet?

) Basically, he walked into wal mart wearing shoes, a small shirt, and no boxers. If I remember correctly, they didn't really do anything about it other than give him some pretty dirty looks.

As for prisoner abuse, I'll leave it at this: One thing we have always prided ourselves on was our bill of rights and constitution, which specifically prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. If we are so proud of it, we should sure as hell follow it. It doesn't matter where we do it, but if we caused it, we are breaking our own rule that we hold so dearly. Plus, a lot of people aren't even given the right to a trial. In the worst cases, the people were turned in by others simply for the money offered, even if they didn't do anything. Ok, I better stop now. Don't want to get too politicky.

teraflop122 · Post by **teraflop122** » Wed Feb 14, 2007 9:30 am

"Terrorists kill people."

Do they all? Have they all in the past? That sentence can be proved wrong by one instance where a terrorist did not kill someone

No, the statement "All terrorists kill people," could be proven wrong in that way.

What would be the point of saying something short, simple wrong? You see, my point, which you've proved, was that one has to be careful and not just sum up to sum up. Best not to sum up at all. Best to view an issue from all points and adress them all?

You have forgotten all the instances where a lengthy explanation is not feasible or called for, such as this topic or normal conversation. You are failing to abide by your own statement.

Or would that be to big and complex for you?

Insulting me does not add anything of value to this arguement, nor does it support your claim to be of voting age.

Remember, summing something up for the sake of others does not mean your thoughts on the matter lack complexity or depth.