SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: jttmab who wrote (5599)8/2/2001 1:52:01 AM
From: Lazarus_Long  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93284
 
I'm going to start at the bottom.
Not a legally binding document, but does it lend itself to application as an instrument of the intent of the Framers? I think it does.
But did "inalienable right to life,...." mean that the Framers were against the death penalty? If so, why didn't they say so? Why DIDN'T they put that into the Constitution. Many of the same people were involved in both efforts.
And NOT ONE American Colony outlawed the death penalty. Or did so later during the period when they were each an independent nation. States outlawing the death penalty is a recent phenomenon.
And the origin of that part of the discussion was the death penalty.
I believe your argument falls.

I think GDP falls rather short of answering the question.
Ah, but it's a good proxy for what you've admitted is an unanswerable question. The more wealthy a nation, the better everyone in it lives. The more and better food and housing they have, the more opportunity for education,...

There is undoubtedly a price to be paid for that prosperity, but few nations are willing to avoid it if it is within reach.

Your turn for the left.
I don't have good examples immediately at hand, but I do believe that with a little research I could match you rabidity for rabidity. Some good examples are right here on SI. Go check out X the Unknown or asenna1. Or American Spirit's latest trip around the bend.