So? Does it mean, their children need to breath the noxious exhaust of the cheap cars? Is that somehow acceptable to you, 1-percenter, simply because they would not have to be poisoned quite so much?
Why do you hate poor children? Typical RethugliKKKan Nazi...
I didn't say anything about authoritarianism. That is your argument. I'm talking about proper legal due process.
Did the Nazis give the Jews they killed fair trials? Yes or no?
Am I an advocate of fair trials? Yes or no?
Okay... so kindly don't suggest I'm a Nazi like some fucking 12 year old that is having their FIRST argument on the internet and doesn't know that Godwin's law is actually a cautionary reminder that comparing people you disagree with to Hitler or nazis is a fucking ignorant and counter productive and childish thing to do.
Now... Try again... this time without suggesting that I'm a nazi just for saying that due process is a relevant factor.
Address MY argument about proper courts. The Nazis for example if they tried jews at all were using an unfair court system or a kangaroo court to convict the jews. If they had used a fair court system and only executed people that were convicted... it is not very likely they would have been able to genocide anyone.
Think about it.
If you have a problem with the US court system, then that is an important issue. Lets talk about that. But that discussion has NOTHING to do with executions. Once your issue with the court system is addressed, I expect that line of argument to be concluded. I also expect whatever standards you want applied to executions to be applied more broadly to the rest of the legal system. If your rules don't cause systemic collapse of the court system through inefficiency then possibly it is sustainable. If it does then obviously your standards are not practical.
Do you agree that it's a problem that only ~20% of the female workforce successfully pursue work technical fields here in the US and the West?
It would only be a problem, if something other than genuine lack of interest stopped the rest of them.
People seeing a problem insist, genders are equal and therefor any disparity in interest is automatically evidence of a problem. But I don't think, genders are equal so I need some other evidence.
How would you propose to equalize this, if at all?
Before searching for solutions, I need to be convinced, there is a problem...
Free markets would mean that they would get no water and they would have been stupid to create a agricultural business in the desert.
thisa sums it up nicely.
why should cali get to take water from other places because of their poor planning? I mean if they want to buy it AFTER the state that has the location of water has gotten all it needs/wants, and they sell it to cali, thats fine i suppose. but plain and simple. if you plant in a desert, dont complain when you run out of water
make them commute two hours
Nobody makes anybody commute — people do that on their own free will.
and bring bag lunches
That's always a good idea — because home-made lunch is cheaper than a purchased one.
If they didn't deserve such abuse they wouldn't be poor
Who is abusing who?
/end Puritan/Protestant trolling
Just South of the border lies a vast, populous, sunny, and Catholic country. You are in a wrong place — just move South and leave this gloomy Puritan/Protestant hellhole to the rest of us.
make them commute two hours to work every day in older gas guzzling vehicles because none of them can afford Priuses
So, in addition to "affordable" housing, in your ideal world, the poor will also be provided (by someone) with "affordable" Priuses?
The US founders executed people quite freely so saying the constitution forbids it is a little rich. No official interpretation of the US constitution has been read to forbid executions in general.
So that's just bunk.
As to your notion that you're not a hypocrite because you ideology thinks executions are icky and have cooties, that isn't a defense against a hypocrisy charge. You need to cite some logic here. Saying "but I have beliefs and opinions!" is no defense.
As to limiting my statement, justice systems often don't have limits as to what they can do or rule upon. They limit themselves perhaps within their jurisdiction. But even then sometimes they presume to rule the whole world. It is the nature of justice that it is defined by the power and ambition of the people that wield it.
Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky