syntax252

I can't comment on the Austrailian economy, because I am an American. I just happen to know that it works here, I don't know why it wouldn't work there. Again, what happened is Austrailia is contrary to what happened here, I would guess that you need more privatization with more competition, not less. Well the lowest rate in income tax went from 15% to 10% under Bush's "tax cut for the rich" resulting in about a 1/3 saving for the lowest tax payers. Maybe that has something to do with the support he got from the working class--and his re-election?

In the cases you cite, the question of judgement of the murderer was what swung the vote in favor of leniency, not whther or not the punishment violated the "cruel or unusual" clause. If they had used that as an excuse today, I would not argue that they erred, but in today's decision, it was the penality itself that they ruled unconstitutional--but only for young people.

I disagree. It is not a question about whether or not one understands the magnitude of his crime, that was not what the decision addressed. What the decision addressed was the "cruel or unusual" clause in the Constitution. The one which says that "no cruel or unusual punishment" shall be imposed. If the Death penality is "cruel" then it is cruel for all people, not just youngsters, and is therefore unconstitutional for all people. The SCOTUS is trying to say that it is cruel for people under 18, but not cruel for people over 18. Certainly they will prevail, as the Constitution gives them this right, but is if outside the realm of logic. In my opinion.

Don't be too hard on greed. If it were not for greed, humankind would never have invented the pocket. We also would still be sitting before the mouth of a cold dark cave.

Whether it is right or wrong is not the point. The point is that the Constitution is supposed to apply to all citizens equally, so if it is "cruel" to apply the DP to someone under 18, is it not also cruel to apply it to someone who is over 18? This is not a case of voting rights, or some other clause that can logically be applied on an age basis, this is whether or not a penality is "cruel or unusual."

Well then I take it that your answer to my question about murdering an old person versus a young person is yes also?

The thing about the decision that lost me was that they reportedly ruled it "cruel" punishment when applied to someone under 18. If it is cruel for someone under 18 who has committed a murder, how can it not be cruel for someone who is 18 and up? Do people under 18 suffer more by losing their lives that someone over 18? Are we now going to quantify the seriousness of murder based on the age of the murderer? Why not say that if one murders an old person, that it is not as serious a crime as it would be if the victim were young?

I still say it is more spherical than blue because color is subjective to the light conditions and the observer, and spherical (the geometry) is not.

I don't think it is fair to say that the only people to benifit from the profit of a company are the shareholders, because the employees have jobs that they would not have absent the capitalists. I also do not agree that privatization is injurious to the economic system because competition between the several manufacturers of any specific product tends to keep costs down and quality up, benefiting the consumer as well as the shareholder. Also, in the world of today, we in the working class find ourselves invested in many of the companies that we work for through our 401Ks as well as other investments that we might make privately. So, in my opinion, what works best is a market economy in which prices are established by the consumers willingness to pay and the workers willingness to provide the labor and the price of that labor being established through collective bargaining, with a body of law to make sure that everyone plays by the rules. In short, a blend of Capitalism and socialism with a democratic method of electing representatives to impliment laws to oversee those elements. It seems to have worked quite well for us here in America.

Well boys, I don't think that one could ever travel backwards in time because to do so would involve more that one reality. One reality where for example, he was 25 years old in 2005, and another in which he was 25 years old in 1995. If he went back to before he was born, there would be one reality in which he existed and another in which he did not. Whether or not a device could exist that would alter the rate at which time passed for an individual--perhaps, but I cannot see how one could reverse time.

I don't see why not.

I would say that if wealth were discribed as an asset that would contribute to the survival of the group or the undividual--and why not?--then certainly the beehive with it's store of honey would be an example of an insect creating wealth. However, under that difinition, fat could be defined as wealth too and I have known a lot of fat ladies who were broke.

Probably as much as anything, it is to see what works and what does not before doing it on humans.

Do you think that wealth could be defined as anything that the recipient finds to be of value? In America, it may be money, gold or fame, in other places it may be anything from goats to glass beads? You know, there is a story about buying Manhattan Isalnd from the Indians for a few pieces of cheap jewelry. Also, there are times when an electricial is much more valuable that a plastic surgeon. As far as that goes, in todays world, the 140 pound computer geek is more valued than the 240 pound sword weilding warrior. It was not always so. Wealth can be said to have a definition that is not static?

This article tells of a dog adopting some kittens. http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/news/bizarre/112404_APsn_dog.html

Reverse, I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say that wealth is created out of nothing. Perhaps I don't understand wealth to be the same thing that you do? What do you mean when you say wealth?

But isn't blue somewhat subjective, while spherical is not?

The ball is indeed spherical. The reason that the ball is spherical is because the originator of this thread said that it was spherical, therefore it's sphereocity if one of the givin parameters. It matters not whether or not is is possible to construct a perfectly spherical ball. The fact that it was defined as spherical is all that is necessary to the debate. Therefore, since blue can be called green to some people and shades of blue even called black, I vote for spherical.

If one does not think that 4 billion years is enough time for evolution to produce humans, all he needs to do is read one of these threads and witness how much it evolves in just 2 or 3 days Most of them will have changed direction 1/2 dozen times in that timespan.