^imstellar28:
As if a hospital or agency would really turn someone like that down. Most people just aren't assholes and take responsibility and pay their bills, or else the whole system would come crashing down with a bunch of greedy fuckers who don't have insurance begging for charity.
The new health care plan, spend $100,000 on tuition but neglect to get $200 health insurance and then beg for free chemotherapy when your stupid ass gets cancer! Coming soon to all 300 million americans!
Did they leave a contact address for donations? I want to send him an email telling him I hope his cancer returns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As the article explains in some detail, he didn't exactly come from a wealthy family. College students don't have cash to spare and he's not alone in this situation. People aged 18-25 make up the largest group of uninsured in the country because of their "Can't get sick" attitude.

It, of course, may not be the wisest choice but for many people it's a fiscal impossibility. I don't understand your callas attitude towards someone who is struggling with a low income family who is in a difficult situation. It's not really a gamble if you dont have a choice. OF COURSE the kid would have preferred to have health insurance.

I wonder would you say the same thing to someone who doesn't have renters insurance. Lets say my neighbor decides he's going to burn the place down. "Well it's a good thing JJ lost all of his worldly possessions, that's what you get when you gamble with your apartment. I wish i knew where he lived so I could kick him in the balls," or here's an even better one.

Say in a freak accident (hey cancer isn't all that common) my arm gets burned off because of a deep fried turkey burning (i said freak right?) and here's you: "Well that's what JJ gets for not having accidental dismemberment insurance, that's what he gets when he gambles with his arm. I wish i knew where he lived so i could burn the other arm until it was useless."

That shrimp indeed has some finely honed ninja dismemberment skills.

Also, it's horrible and ugly and should be purged with fire.

You say we have no ethics at all, so you must have plenty of examples to prove your point.

On the topic in question, I already have. Nobody in the Democratic party seriously expected Clinton to resign from cheating on his wife and lying about it because he didn't violate any expectations of morality from a Democrat.

When you can cheat on your wife, lie about it under oath, and have people dismissively hand wave it away, you'd have a serious ethical crisis on your hands. If they cared about ethics. Which they don't, beyond paying it lip service.

(Don't get me wrong, plenty of individual Democrats do, but not the party as a whole.)

Are you attempting to equate having an extra-marital affair with being a member of a "pro-dismemberment lobby"?

Hey, man, don't judge me. You can't. Morals are just evolved feelings, so all are equally valid. If I say they're the same, what - you're going to take the imaginary moral high ground and say I'm wrong? You can't. That's the really amusing thing about moral relativism. When you claim it, you lose the ability to even think about ethics in a critical fashion at all.

>> ^ShakaUVM:
It's often said that liberals can never be hypocrites because they don't actually believe in anything ethical in the first place.

Examples?

You say we have no ethics at all, so you must have plenty of examples to prove your point.

"Fortunately for you, BicycleRepairMan, I'm part of the pro-dismemberment lobby...."

Are you attempting to equate having an extra-marital affair with being a member of a "pro-dismemberment lobby"?

Thats the stupidest and most pathetic defense of hypocritical douchebaggery you've come up with in a long time.

It's often said that liberals can never be hypocrites because they don't actually believe in anything ethical in the first place.

It's amazing to see someone actually making that argument.

And yeah, QuantumMushroom had it precisely right - it's better to have ethics and have (some people) fail to live up to them (some of the time) than to not have ethics at all.

Fortunately for you, BicycleRepairMan, I'm part of the pro-dismemberment lobby, so you won't have any right to accuse me of hypocrisy when I come to your house and start collecting digits. Hey man, that's my moral belief, and since all moral beliefs are the same (don't judge me, man!) you have no grounds to criticize me. Hell, your very moral foundation is not to criticize others because of their beliefs. You wouldn't want to be a hypocrite and accuse me of doing this supposed "evil" now would you?

Hell, I'll even chop off your hand in a country where it's legal, so you got no room to complain there. I'm sure you've stolen something in your life, so we'll fly together to Saudi Arabia, and maybe even get it televised.

Yet the bible never condemn slavery, so why are so many Christians against it?

Epic theological fail.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

>> ^deathcow:
this clip is cut short, the last 12 seconds are brutally bloody and there are some scenes of partial human dismemberment
the firefighter reminds me a young Dag Sr. had be been Australian


^I know what you mean, except he doesn't have the beer in his hand.

>> ^deathcow:
this clip is cut short, the last 12 seconds are brutally bloody and there are some scenes of partial human dismemberment


Don't forget the brain devouring, drop bears love brains.

this clip is cut short, the last 12 seconds are brutally bloody and there are some scenes of partial human dismemberment

the firefighter reminds me a young Dag Sr. had be been Australian

>> ^Januari:
Make me feel better... tell me i'm not the only one who was REALLY hoping that little bugger would get a finger...
Lie to me if you have to...


Yeah... it's that whole "schadenfreude" thing. I was hoping to see some digital dismemberment, just so that the owner learns the harsh lesson that these things don't always make for very good pets.

"Hey kids! Wanna make your neighbor fantasize about your slow dismemberment? Or how about be the target of of an armed neighborhood alliance? Well then, put a loudnoisemachine on your tricycle and go for a ride!"

>> ^twiddles:

Amendment VIII
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
pun·ish·ment
1: the act of punishing
2 a: suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution
   b: a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure
3: severe, rough, or disastrous treatment

Nowhere does it define punishment as being post conviction. Indeed the amendment as a single sentence mentions bail which is certainly not restricted to post conviction. The logical conclusion based on the possible definitions of punishment - even if you were to read the constitution and its amendments literally - is that cruel or unusual punishment (severe treatment) at any time is prohibited. How do you get to punishment as being only something that happens upon conviction? Any case law to back that up? Is it okay if I hit you repeatedly with an iron bar as long as I am "interogatting" you? That flies in the face of logic. If you stretch it enough you can say it is okay if you kill the suspect as long as you were interrogating them.
I agree with NetRunner, Scalia isn't doing his job correctly and he is being a smug prick about it.


rickegee already pointed out the case law.

The dictionary definitions are moot because legal definitions differ from common dictionary definitions. Here is the legal definition of cruel and unusual punisment. Note that it specifies convicted criminal defendants:

"cruel and unusual punishment n. governmental penalties against convicted criminal defendants which are barbaric, involve torture and/or shock the public morality. They are specifically prohibited under the Eighth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. However, nowhere are they specifically defined. Tortures like the rack (stretching the body inch by inch) or the thumbscrew, dismemberment, breaking bones, maiming, actions involving deep or long-lasting pain are all banned. But solitary confinement, enforced silence, necessary force to prevent injury to fellow prisoners or guards, psychological humiliation, and bad food are generally allowed. In short, there is a large gray area, in which "cruel and unusual" is definitely subjective based on individual sensitivities and moral outlook. The U. S. Supreme Court waffled on the death penalty, declaring that some forms of the penalty were cruel and prohibited under the Furman case (1972), which halted executions for several years, but later relaxed the prohibition. The question remains if the gas chamber, hanging, or electrocution are cruel and unusual. Cruel, certainly, but hanging was not unusual at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted. (See: capital punishment)"

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc.

No one is saying it's okay to beat (American) prisoners or the like. The argument is that other constitutional rights and other laws are being violated in those cases: not the 8th Amendment.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I've tried to follow the consensus on the thread. So to summarize - remove the guideline on "snuff"- and do we want to have some other verbage there - to indicate that we still don't want graphic death scenes? I'm thinking hostage dismemberment etc. Someone give us a good block of text for what should go in place of the snuff section.

For the War channel - raven, you just need to find an admin for the Horror channel, transfer ownership to them and create the new channel.

Oh, and a *graphic invocation - right?

I disagree with your assumption that the issue takes religion into account when picking sides or media (the US has a highly constricted view to reporting news from Israel in AIPAC controlled way, have you ever heard anything critical of Israel from US news sources?), there are many Christian and Jewish activists who believe that Israelis process of peace is heavy handed. As I recall Israel is the only nation that has a nuclear weapons program that is hush hush on the International scene, and is well armed with Merkava tanks, AH-1 Cobras and M-16 wielding soldiers, that force has always been there and is not a response to the threat recently. Not that this is a justification for Palestinian tactics, but what other response would you expect after 60 years? Them throwing rocks still?

I believe that the Israeli people want a peaceful resolution to this conflict, but that is at odds with the decision reached in high government of Israel to deny the Palestinian people the right to their own land.

For all the peace rhetoric of the last 60 years, all you have see is a slow dismemberment of the Palestinian territory into ever smaller enclaves. As Henry Siegman writes:

"The Middle East peace process may well be the most spectacular deception in modern diplomatic history. Since the failed Camp David summit of 2000, and actually well before it, Israel’s interest in a peace process – other than for the purpose of obtaining Palestinian and international acceptance of the status quo – has been a fiction that has served primarily to provide cover for its systematic confiscation of Palestinian land and an occupation whose goal, according to the former IDF chief of staff Moshe Ya’alon, is ‘to sear deep into the consciousness of Palestinians that they are a defeated people’.

But I digress from the main video, I just find it so supremely ironic as well for UN Watch to attack the human rights records of Iran when you have Bush come up on the podium and talk about human rights when we have Guantanamo bay. Robert Parry from ConsortiumNews:

George W. Bush – who asserts his unlimited personal authority to kill, kidnap, torture and spy on anyone of his choosing anywhere in the world – opened his annual speech to the United Nations by hailing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The U.S. President pushed the envelope of the world’s credulity even further by citing the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of 1948 as justification for his “war on terror” and his draconian policies for eliminating “terrorists” or other threats to world order with little or no due process.

I mean srsly?

http://www.factsandlogic.org/

What are the facts?

The state of Israel was legally created out of the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I. The area was desolate – desert and swamp – with some small towns and a few inhabitants, many of them nomads. The inhabitants, if they thought about it at all, considered themselves Syrians. The legitimacy of Israel arises from the Balfour Declaration issued by the British, who were given the mandate over the area by the League of Nations. Jews have lived in the country since Biblical times. The Arabs from the surrounding areas were lured to “Palestine” by the industry and prosperity that the Jews brought to the region. Envy, hatred, and religious fanaticism turned the Arabs against the Jews. In bloody outrages, horrible massacres, killings and rapes, the Arabs tried to dislodge the Jews, but were unable to do so.

In 1947, the British, having tired of the trouble and the bloodshed, resigned their mandate. That same year, the United Nations mandated partitioning of the territory. The Jews, though disappointed, accepted the partition. The Arabs rejected it out of hand and launched war against Israel. The armies of five Arab countries invaded the nascent state. Following the exhortations of the invaders, the Arab residents got out of the way hoping to return after victory was attained. They could then reclaim their property and that of the Jews, all of whom would have been killed or would have fled. That and that alone is the source of the Arab “refugee problem.”

Had the Arabs accepted the UN partition plan, there would now have been a state of “Palestine” for the last 58 years. They might have attained a similar level of prosperity, advancement, and development as Israel, which, small though it is, is today in almost every regard one of the world’s most advanced countries.

END WEBSITE

Op-ed: "Palestinians'" greatest fear would be the elimination of Israel, since they would then be forced to face their own failings.

I don't want to believe that Semaj is in the business of viral Astroturf.

S/he can prove it by up-voting any or all of my 6-7 videos clogging the queue right now, many of them on the verge of promotion without having to feature death or dismemberment. The Yo Yo Ma (on the verge of extinction actually) is particularly excellent even if it lacks treadmills or exercise equipment.