marks2065

Well, this moderate Christian RePUBICAN also does not believe in the death penalty, but not for financial reasons. A permanent solution demands a perfect process - and one does not yet exist. Conversely, I find the arguments on both sides have come from years of treating hard-core long-time repeat offending criminals to have been coddled so much that it turns my stomach. Recently, a friend of mine's wife was killed by a drunk, Guatemalan illegal alien as she rode her motorcycle to work. He ran a red light, completely took her out in an instant (as in dead) and witnesses said at trial that he looked at them, shrugged his shoulders as in, "Oh well." He received six years and that "was the best we could hope for." Cause you know, he didn't mean to kill her; kill her - he accidentally killed her. My buddy was preparing to speak at the parole hearing about the "only love of his life" when he received a call of, "Mr. X, we're sorry to be calling you like this, but we thought OKC was going to call you and they thought we were going to call you, but the man who hit your wife is in Oklahoma City awaiting deportation." My friend asks what he can do to make it stop. "Well, sir, I'm sorry to tell you this but once they get to Oklahoma City, they are usually on a plane that day." He was and he had served 16 months of his six year sentence. Due to so many liberties that criminals now have; cable TV, degree programs, free access to lawyers, counseling etc. has reached the level of ridiculous. So ridiculous that we must now fall to it being a financial question instead of a justice question? In addition to seeing first degree murderers having to serve < half their sentences; the victims being the only ones to receive the life sentence; lesser capital cases getting even less time over the years - the American public cries out for true justice. NOW, let's talk about this so-called "lower cost of life sentence to death penalty" bullshit. Here's what those 11 "Urban Studies" done by DPIC DON'T tell you... "In 1994, a new law (amended in 1996) authorized the federal government to provide financial assistance to the 50 states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories to construct or renovate prisons to incarcerate additional violent offenders. Those states and territories that adopt the 85 percent standard became eligible for an increased portion of federal funding. Since fiscal year 1996, the Justice Department has provided more than $1.3 billion through the Violent Offender Incarceration/Truth-in-Sentencing (VOI/TIS) incentive grants program. The adoption of these state legislative changes has resulted in increases in time actually served behind bars and growing state prison populations nationwide (up 7 percent annually since 1990). The average time served by released violent offenders (persons convicted of murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault) rose from 43 months in 1993 to 49 months in 1997. Time served by released violent offenders rose in at least 38 states during that period. Their average percent of sentence served in prison rose from 47 percent to 54 percent." (1) 54 PERCENT?!?!?!?! So, what we have are studies asking the States for financial information regarding THEIR costs; not the TOTAL cost... Because we all know the government can take money from one pocket and put it in another and spin it as a savings or a greater cost depending on the situation then existing and how many news cameras are present and which way the opinion needs to swing that day. BOTTOM LINE: I will be one of the first to raise his hand and agree to Life Without Parole really meaning, 1) life without parole, 2) prison meaning prison and 3) taking away any and all rights and liberties. Yup, as in hard fucking labor from 5 o'clock in the morning until 10PM at night. No work programs, no release programs, No college or counseling services, no degree programs (cause that kinda means you may be getting out, don't it?). Let's go to the big rocks into little rocks and paint the little rocks in the hot blazing sun forty year program. Unless it involves a child and then you get the forty year with castration program. But, we know that's not going to happen either.. Cause you know, we'll get to hear such wonderful platitudes like Dostoyevsky's, "The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons" or Pope John Paul II's, "A society is measured by how it treats its weakest members" ad nauseum infinitum. (1) http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/press/tssp.pr +1

Cheaper? How can $10 in electricity be more expensive than housing an inmate at 50k a year be more expensive?

Firstly you are confusing profit and revenue. Secondly, what Exxon lists as cost of a gallon of gas at retail already contains a hefty profit margin. If you'd actually read the post, you would have seen that Exxon said their PROFIT on a gallon was slightly over two cents, as opposed to the 48 cents that gov't gets. Feel free to provide the numbers proving your claim, however. That's because they are only listing their downstream profits.Downstream activities account for only about 30% of their profits. They buy the crude on the international market, like everybody else. However, they are also major sellers on the international market. So, when they buy crude for downstream activities, part of that money goes into their own pocket as profits, yet for their "blog post" they would list it as a cost. May help if you think about it as opposed to just reading a blog post. lets say you are right, if we add in the 70% that you say is missing then we have under 10 cents per gallon, and that is still a huge difference than what the government is taking. 10 cents per gallon at $4 a gallon is 2.5% total profit and that is very low as compared to things like ...... almost anything else. I don't hear you screaming about the evil apple company, or general electric, or liberal leaning colleges all making more profit. lets wake up and start really putting the blame on those that deserve it, like politicians that spend us into debt, tax us to death, restric oil drilling, distribute our hard earned money to those that are to lazy to work becxause welfare and unemployment are to easy to get.

I guess that would depend on your version of a civilized world, mine wouldn't include murderers. it is more civilized when murderers are not here to threaten us.

Eagles don't normally waddle and quack like ducks. Obama was right in one aspect, and that is the SC does allow politics and ideology into their decisions, otherwise it would not be a 5 to 4 vote it would be 7 to 2 or a 3 to 6 vote. They are there to uphold the constitution not party affiliation. To bad the justices have forgotten what their jobs are. Right, you should NEVER let your ideology affect your decision making. You should use a Ouija board. Being a judge is never about party or beliefs, it is about deciding an outcome based on law, the SC law is the constitution. when you make rulings based on anything other than law the rest of us can no longer trust that we would get a FAIR trial. Funny, don't you think, that in so many cases 5 of the most prominent legal minds in the country can think the Constitution means "X" and another 4 of them can think it means "not X". If it isn't the SC's politicization that's the problem, it must be the law. Or is it that the 4 are not using the constitution to rule on the law

Firstly you are confusing profit and revenue. Secondly, what Exxon lists as cost of a gallon of gas at retail already contains a hefty profit margin. profit for oil companies is much less per gallon than what the government takes per gallon.

Eagles don't normally waddle and quack like ducks. Obama was right in one aspect, and that is the SC does allow politics and ideology into their decisions, otherwise it would not be a 5 to 4 vote it would be 7 to 2 or a 3 to 6 vote. They are there to uphold the constitution not party affiliation. To bad the justices have forgotten what their jobs are. Right, you should NEVER let your ideology affect your decision making. You should use a Ouija board. Being a judge is never about party or beliefs, it is about deciding an outcome based on law, the SC law is the constitution. when you make rulings based on anything other than law the rest of us can no longer trust that we would get a FAIR trial.

Eagles don't normally waddle and quack like ducks. Obama was right in one aspect, and that is the SC does allow politics and ideology into their decisions, otherwise it would not be a 5 to 4 vote it would be 7 to 2 or a 3 to 6 vote. They are there to uphold the constitution not party affiliation. To bad the justices have forgotten what their jobs are.

Remember this when you vote this election in 2012 yes I will remember when I vote, I have the ability to make choices that many others don't. All those projects the left wants and many on the right want also, can not happen if we are bankrupt.

Sure they did...they looked into the their financial ability to contribute to Obama's campaign. maybe any political donations paid to anyone running for public office should be repaid towards the bankrupcy.

Why don't we hold these people responsible for not performing due diligence. Also why not make those repay the money they got in salary towards the loan.

Did no one in the Obama administration even look into the financial abilities of these companies before giving them all the stimulous money? http://finance.yahoo.com/news/solar-trust-seeks-bankruptcy-protection-161510918.html

Like what gutting fish? Picking crops? Not like they are working in offices. when you parents were 15-20 years old they did jobs like bus boy, shelf stocker, fast food resturaunt worker, and other jobs like that. Now those jobs are filled by many illegals and hard to get for a teenager today. My stepson was turned down by burger king and McDonalds because he could not speak spanish, In america a high school kid has to speak spanish to flip burgers!!! these are the low paying, introductory jobs that influence and build character in our children that are no longer available to them.

Higher taxes became a bigger problem after free trade since companies could go over seas and still keep the US market. Handouts to the lazy is a huge issue now, back then you were ridiculed if you were on food stamps, now it is looked at like it is someone elses fault not yours. Food stamps and welfare are now multigenerational entitlements, not a bridge to help you get back on your feet. Illegal imigration is allowing companies to lower the pay scale of many workers to stay in compitition with foriegn companies, another free trade issue.

yep and you can blame illegal imigration, free trade, high taxes, and handouts to the lazy for votes.

by amendment not because someone doesn't like the restraints it has, the scotus' job is to uphold the constitution not change it So you reckon it IS OK to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater. You can shout fire if you want, you may not like what happens after that.

Obama is pissed because it doesn't look like the scotus will allow the law. My feeling is that if he doesn't like it he has the right to have it put to a vote by the american people and congress, unfortunalely he wouldn't have the support of most of the country.

by amendment not because someone doesn't like the restraints it has, the scotus' job is to uphold the constitution not change it as Obama wants.

If you don't like the constitution then add an amendment, that is what was done for the last 200 years. I didn't hear Obama bitching about prop 8 being overturned by a gay judge. it really pisses him off when the constitution gets in his way doesn't it.

The price of oil (and so of gas) is set by the world market. Oil companies are under no obligation to make oil available to the US market at below-market prices, even if that oil originated from a US source. Once they extract it, they can sell to whomever offers the best price. Besides that, US oil production is at the highest level in 8 years, and the storage facilities are full to capacity, leading to a boom in construction of new storage tanks. In Cushing, OK storage capacity has increased from 26 million barrels in 2005 to 65 million barrels today, and 125 new tanks are under construction. If your statement that gas prices are determined by oil production is true, why are gas prices not at an 8-year low? The only way US production could significantly lower prices at the pump would be if: 1) US production could have such an impact on global demand as to drive global prices for oil down, or: 2) the government would legislate restrictions so US-produced oil could only be sold here. The first is essentially impossible, as US reserves are only 2% of the world total, and entities such as OPEC would simply defend the price by lowering their production to compensate for increased US production. As a result, US reserves would be depleted faster, and would be sold for less money, while the OPEC nations could make the same amount of money from selling less oil, and conserve their reserves to sell later at an even higher price. The second strategy would be rather anti-capitalist, to say the least. I'd be very surprised to learn you were in favor of government mandated price controls on the oil industry (or anything else). In reality, the current price spike is being driven by speculators capitalizing on fears that an Iran/Israel/US conflict would disrupt oil supplies coming through the Strait of Hormuz. The easiest route to lower prices would be to deflate tensions by curtailing the saber rattling and seriously pursuing a diplomatic solution. Of course, that wouldn't be in the interests of our current crop of Republican candidates-in-waiting, who are falling all over each other to show who can be the biggest militarist hawk (Ron Paul being the only exception). The tactic of blaming the government (i.e. Obama) for gas prices is a transparent Republican election ploy, entirely without factual merit but nevertheless appealing to those for whom stimulus/response is the limit of their capacity for critical thought. Don to bad your information on our oil reserves is wronghttp://www.americanfreepress.net/html/u_s__has_massive_oil.html all we need is a little american enginuity to pull it out

Well I say you open up a bottle of r-12 and buy some new shorts. this global warming thing is good for us. But what caused the warm winter here? Possibly a shift in the pacific ocean currants do to the earthquake and sunami in japan?

It's a socialism issue. +100 Welfare Farmers Indigent emergency medicine care School programs Indigent burial Unemployment benefits Government nursing homes The list goes on and on, but now all of a sudden everyone is worried about Socialism, after all of these years. And everyone is a Capitalist, until gas hits $4 a gallon. The gas would not be $4 agallon if we could produce more in the US. this is not a capitalism issue it is a government restriction issue.

Why are you supportive of a system that expands the pool of those to be freeloaded off of? Because it reduces the number of freeloaders. no it doesn't, with all the waivers and exceptions it just increases what I have to pay so the freeloaders get more. The only way it would help is if everyone paid the same and nobody was excluded from paying. but that would really piss of the liberals.

Of course, that ignores the FACT that unemployment among those with college education is far less than among those without. Apparently colleges are doing something right. www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm How many of those with college degrees are actually working in the field they trained for? How many went to college and are now unemployed because the field they trained in was saturated. How many could have saved tens of thousands of $s by going to a trade school and learned a trade that is currantly looking for people to fill the employment gaps? Find out and report back to us. Until you do that we'll just have to go with the data we have, which is that a college education leads to lower unemployment rates and higher income. I say you are wrong, However, the data prove me right. www.mymoneyblog.com/unemployment-rates-vs-level-of-education.html www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm steadfastfinances.com/blog/2010/03/05/education-versus-unemployment-rate/ www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/demographics/ www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm No that doesn't prove it, it proves that those with the qualities I described, college worked for them and some it did not work for. It shows that those that did not complete the programs they started started did worse than those that did. I don't have a college eduacation And I make almost 80% more than that of the average college graduate (46K). I learned a trade in 6 months and saved over 50k in college tuition. college was not the correct route for me and is not the correct route for many that are in college. College is a tool to use not the cause for employment and higher wages. Learning a trade that is in demand and your desire to sucede in life is more important that any college eduacation.

Staying on unemployment because you don't like working for less is wrong. This causes increases to the products you buy by raising costs to the bisiness. Unemployment is a bridge to get you to your next job not to support you in a way that makes you more confortable. Doesn't help that there are 4 people looking for jobs for every job available. We also have a serious mismatch between skills available and skills needed. tell the dems to allow projects like the pipeline and the mine in wisc, that would takes tens of thousands off the unemployment lines and improve the economy, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. That ass-umes that the millions of unemployed are qualified for those jobs. Mismatch of skills IS one of the problems we face. Maybe that is because the people are taining for jobs they want instead of jobs that are available or they can actually get and do. Maybe the colleges need to offer jobs skills classes instead of basket weaving and discussing our favorite auther 101. Of course, that ignores the FACT that unemployment among those with college education is far less than among those without. Apparently colleges are doing something right. www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm How many of those with college degrees are actually working in the field they trained for? How many went to college and are now unemployed because the field they trained in was saturated. How many could have saved tens of thousands of $s by going to a trade school and learned a trade that is currantly looking for people to fill the employment gaps? Find out and report back to us. Until you do that we'll just have to go with the data we have, which is that a college education leads to lower unemployment rates and higher income. I say you are wrong, Self determination, good choices on schooling, competitive drive in the work place and pride in ones self leads to lower unemployment and higher income. Schooling is just a tool in ones tool box to achieve a goal. Picking the right tool is what is needed and to many people are picking the wrong tool and expect society to just drop the entitlements into their laps.