The owner warned me; if I didn't have it snug against my shoulder it would break my collar bone.

It didn't kick as hard as I expected.

Well, let's face it: people don't know what's good for them. It's better if we let the smart people run society. They can make better decisions for us than we can make for ourselves. This is known as Coercive Paternalism and it is the hottest new movement since Progressivism. The closed-minded need not apply, CP is only available to those who enjoy having their cherished beliefs challenged. From page 1: "The truth is that we don't reason very well, and in many cases there is no justification for leaving us to struggle with our own inabilities and to suffer the consequences." Since the government is not tempted by the rewards of your poor decision-making, it can dispassionately make better decisions for you. Let's face it: "choice" is such a sacred cow, especially to a certain that kind of person who practices out-of-fashion politics.

If you are a productive citizen, then you are needed to pay taxes. You aren't allowed to take that away, it's selfish. If you are a net consumer of taxes, then you are needed to keep voting for more money for your kind. Either way, you're sticking around.

And "the" was never "ye", it's just that printers used "y" as the thorn was becoming obsolete.

Great system actually. The only way to avoid the horror stories of people being kidnapped for organs or, worse, the poor selling their organs, is to ensure there are enough donated organs available.

So instead, we only have to worry about hospitals purposely letting you die so they can harvest your organs. If you object, please tell me how this can be avoided. We can't be little Polyannas who think doctors (and hospital administrators, who may not even have medical degrees) can and will do no wrong. Even well-meaning people can make callous decisions with the belief that it's for "the greater good". The Hippocratic oath simply so longer applies; it became the hypocritical oath a long time ago.

The US Govt is going to pick this up, just in time for the elections.

I'm sure the Prison Corporations will be in favor; as well as all the greedy politicians.

It's not like it's legal, or anything, but Really; when has that stopped them from doing something?

Actually, all hyperbole aside, my thoughts were "why are they stopping this and why aren't WE in the US doing this?"

It sounds like a great idea. If someone is going to die anyway, after exhausting the judicial system (again speaking for the US), why waste these organs that could go to help the many people on the waiting lists?

It seems a waste to lose such a vital resource that could help the lives of many innocent people.

Most people are on death row for taking lives unjustly (premeditated murder, etc), why not use this as a method for them to give life to others?

Seems like it would balance out the karma in life a bit, no?

Eh, keep your panties in a knot. The 100 flowers campaign was designed to smoke out closet right-wingers. It succeeded wonderfully, and those neocon pricks spent the next 20 years in jail, unable to harm society with their poisonous ideas.

Why shouldn't the organs be given to the smart people in society? They're the ones that we need to keep around. Are we just going to waste valuable organs on some nutsack who won't even stop drinking or smoking pot? Remember, China is run by scientists and engineers: people like us.

Looks like I'll land well, I was submitted to 5 higher paying jobs before even being able to upgrade my monster profile.

Well, that was literate. Any attempt to match wits with such an individual would be foolhardy.

This will not change until you strike the fear of god into every elected hack in Congress. I don't care if they personally feed Warren Buffet's money to starving babies -- let them know they are gone at the next election.

Yes, you sitting on your ass reading this.

UK spooks spent the entire Cold War bugging and burgling their way around London. Nobody really seemed to give a shit about it then. Now everybody's raging that we even have a security service and that, shockingly, we have allies we share intelligence with. What is wrong with you people?

What do you want to happen, precisely? In the UK, the security services have been putting pressure on newspapers not to publish sensitive material since around 1912, with the D-Notice system. If someone wants to disband the security services or open the archives and publish everything and stop us cooperating with our allies, well, let Him stand for Parliament, get elected, form a government and enact the necessary legislation. That's how a democracy works.

Otherwise, no, I'm not going to allow the Guardian to be my moral guide, judge and jury as to what it's acceptable for the State to do in the interests of national security, especially given the fact it's only doing this to try to increase its circulation as it's up a shit creek without a paddle financially right now.

At one point in time the US was more free then other countries. This is because the size and scopr of the federal government has traditionally been constrained and limited for the most part. The cold war changed a lot of that ss well did the hippy movement of the 60's and the economic colapse in the 70's. Government expanded rapidly trying to "PROTECT" us from then communidt russians and the people started demanding more of the federal government which they were more then happy to address as long as it could increase the powet it held over the people.

This isn't party specific either. Even when a party runs against it as part of their platform, once they get power then make it worse but different.

How many people died in the protests after "Amish Mafia" debuted? You can say the same of other religious followers/cultures, but that statement isn't always going to be true.