Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, August 09, 2017

Can the government ban the text of the First Amendment itself on municipal transit ads because free speech is too "political" for public display?

If this sounds like some ridiculous brain teaser, it should. But unfortunately it's not. It's a core claim in a lawsuit we filed today challenging the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority's (WMATA) restrictions on controversial advertising.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The ACLU, ACLU of D.C., and ACLU of Virginia are teaming up to represent a diverse group of plaintiffs whose ads were all branded as too hot for transit: the ACLU itself; Carafem, a health care network that specializes in getting women access to birth control and medication abortion; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA); and Milo Worldwide LLC -- the corporate entity of provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos.

To put it mildly, these plaintiffs have nothing in common politically. But together, they powerfully illustrate the indivisibility of the First Amendment. Our free speech rights rise and fall together -- whether left, right, pro-choice, anti-choice, vegan, carnivore, or none of the above.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

The SJW's must hate the ACLU.

#1 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 06:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

That's one confused Rat.

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-09 06:41 PM | Reply

#2 So do you agree with the ACLU or not?

#3 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 07:02 PM | Reply

cricket... cricket... cricket...

As I thought.

#4 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 07:30 PM | Reply

#4 Did a tree just fall in the woods?

#5 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-09 07:38 PM | Reply

You're drawing your First Amendment line in the sand at... paid corporate advertising?

I thought maybe free as in speech you don't have to pay-to-play was under attack.

This is no different than not wanting to bake a gay wedding cake, isn't it?

#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 07:41 PM | Reply

#6 That's a discrimination case, and you damn well know it, troll.

#7 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 07:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And... still waiting on Corky.

#8 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 07:50 PM | Reply

Isn't this a discrimination case Political speech is being discriminated from non-political speech.

Just so we're clear, the issue here is WMATA, as a government agency, doesn't have the same freedom as Fox News to reject an ad, correct?

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 08:16 PM | Reply

Sort of like a bakery, as a business open to the public, doesn't have the right to refuse services to customers based on the customers sexual preferences.

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 08:18 PM | Reply

#9 Advertising & First Amendment overview: www.firstamendmentcenter.org

But it helps to actually read the article.

#11 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 08:20 PM | Reply

But it helps to actually read the article.

Snoofy always finds that it is easier to deflect and troll if you don't.

#12 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-08-09 08:27 PM | Reply

#10

Notice how, since he is uncomfortable with the topic of the thread, i.e. the First Amendment, he is deflecting to the gay cake discrimination case, since that falls neatly within his narrative.

#13 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-08-09 08:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The obvious solution is for WMATA to remove all commercial speech from their trains and buses

They'd look a lot nicer too.

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 08:28 PM | Reply

#14 That'll teach the ACLU a lesson. And the abortion provider, too! And yes, they can do that. They just can't arbitrarily ban some commercial advetisements and not others unless it meets certain criteria outlined in #11 which seem extremely fair and pro-freedom, red-white-and-blue constitutional.

#15 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 08:36 PM | Reply

Great thread, Helium!

Not surprised that Snoofy sides with authoritarianism. The text of the 1st Amendment itself is "controversial"? That is pathetic.

#16 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-09 08:39 PM | Reply

#16 SJW's consider the Constitution to be a racist document. So the Bill of Rights triggers them.

#17 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 08:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Which is why I posted this :)

#18 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 08:58 PM | Reply

#16 SJW's consider the Constitution to be a racist document. So the Bill of Rights triggers them.

#17 | POSTED BY HELIUMRAT AT 2017-08-09 08:57 PM | REPLY

Which is why I posted this :)

#18 | POSTED BY HELIUMRAT

I understand completely.

#19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-09 08:59 PM | Reply

#16 SJW's consider the Constitution to be a racist document. So the Bill of Rights triggers them.

Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 08:57 PM | Reply

You know what your problem is??? You're full of helium and have been deprived of oxygen.

#20 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-09 09:03 PM | Reply

#20 I just hate communists. But, yeah, my body is 95% helium, which is why I was the stand in actor for Adam West in this scene from Family Guy: www.youtube.com

(it helps that I look just like him)

#21 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 09:07 PM | Reply

(and I got free teddy bear out of it)

#22 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 09:10 PM | Reply

I love making TrumpRat stand around twiddling his tiny little rodent hands, humming in that ultra-squeaky voice, lmao.

#23 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-09 09:25 PM | Reply

You ------- people are waaaaaaaaay too stuck in each other's heads. So funny.

#24 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-08-09 09:29 PM | Reply

Does an entity not wanting to display advertisements on their property count as an impediment of free speech?

If I wanted to pay to hang banners from City Hall advertising my business or message.

Does City Hall have to comply?

#25 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-08-09 09:34 PM | Reply

#23 Don't you have a statue of Stalin to dust off?

#26 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 09:35 PM | Reply

#25 Read #11

#27 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 09:36 PM | Reply

Uh-oh, I made it made. It's turning orange!

#28 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-09 09:37 PM | Reply

mad, obviously

#29 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-09 09:37 PM | Reply

"Not surprised that Snoofy sides with authoritarianism."

Where did I do that?

But since you brought it up, you do realize when you seek judicial relief, you are asking for the authorities to intervene on the side of your cause, yeah?

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 09:39 PM | Reply

#28 Don't you mean "very, very white"? And do you agree with the ACLU or not?

#31 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 09:43 PM | Reply

Still waiting.

#32 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 09:51 PM | Reply

So the metro should not be allowed to reject political ads.
But bakers should be allowed to reject gay cake orders.

Is that your stance, JeffJ?

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 09:52 PM | Reply

"And do you agree with the ACLU or not?"

Probably not, on this issue. They are an ideological organization, and I'm more of an empiricist by nature.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 09:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The essential problem is a public entity accepting advertising. No advertising-no speech problem.

Of course that would mean paying taxes and fees to operate public systems.

#35 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-08-09 10:01 PM | Reply

#34 Ah, the horror of the ACLU fighting for civil rights, like it's always done. Do you even know the history of the ACLU?

And I would hardly call you an empiricist. You are very, very ideologically driven.

#36 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 10:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#34

LOL, if you are looking for sensory experience on the DR you are looking in absolutely the wrong place.

#37 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-08-09 10:13 PM | Reply

The ACLU was prolly the first org ever called by the epitaph, "SJW".

Crazy as ---- house rat is another.

#38 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-09 10:13 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The essential problem is a public entity accepting advertising. No advertising-no speech problem.
Of course that would mean paying taxes and fees to operate public systems.

#35 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

You nailed it.

#39 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-09 10:16 PM | Reply

#38 No it wasn't. SJW's hate the ACLU, because it stands for free speech. And if MLK hadn't been assassinated by Army Intelligence, he would be protesting their racism today.

#40 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 10:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Or is it "very, very white" of me to say that?

#41 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 10:20 PM | Reply

"And I would hardly call you an empiricist. You are very, very ideologically driven."

I hold ideological precepts, but I try to stay away from positions that aren't supported (or supportable) by facts.

For example, I oppose the death penalty for ideological reasons, but it's not just that, it's also the reality that states without the death penalty have lower murder rates. The evidence bolsters the idea.

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 10:25 PM | Reply

You nailed it.
#39 | Posted by JeffJ

of course I did. :)

That opens the door to considerations of for profit prisons and contracting war.

#43 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-08-09 10:26 PM | Reply

#42 Aren't you confusing cause and effect? Are you really telling me that the death penalty raises murder rates?

For the rest of the night, I'm going to play the stupid drinking game. Every time someone says something incredibly stupid, I'm going to take a drink. Let's see how quickly you get me drunk, Snoofy.

#44 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 10:28 PM | Reply

#43

I agree with you regarding for-profit prisons. :-)

#45 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-09 10:31 PM | Reply

So the metro should not be allowed to reject political ads.
But bakers should be allowed to reject gay cake orders.
Is that your stance, JeffJ?

#33 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

No.

#46 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-09 10:32 PM | Reply

"Are you really telling me that the death penalty raises murder rates?"

I'm telling you the murder rate is higher in states that have the death penalty.

I didn't address cause.

But it's clearly not a deterrent, if the states that use the "deterrent" see higher rates of the thing they're trying to deter.

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 10:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#47 Some people deserve death for their crimes, Snoofy. And yes, it is a deterrent to sane people.

#48 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 10:37 PM | Reply

"I'm telling you the murder rate is higher in states that have the death penalty."

#47 | Posted by snoofy

Now why would that be? Because they are sick and tired of being prey?

#49 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 10:38 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Drinks.

#50 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 10:39 PM | Reply

#47 Some people deserve death for their crimes, Snoofy. And yes, it is a deterrent to sane people.

Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 10:37 PM | Reply

If the death penalty was really a deterrent it would have only needed to be used once.

#51 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-09 10:39 PM | Reply

Data does not support your claim of deterrence.

That matters more to me than your magical thinking.

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 10:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Now why would that be? Because they are sick and tired of being prey?"

They're tired of living with higher murder rates, so their solution is to murder someone?

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 10:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#53 The death penalty is murder. It's justice.

*drinks

#54 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 10:43 PM | Reply

*isn't, not is

#55 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 10:44 PM | Reply

#53 The death penalty is murder. It's justice.

*drinks

Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 10:43 PM | Reply

No it just makes everyone killers since they are killing in our names.

#56 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-09 10:46 PM | Reply

(sorry, I'm not a native English speaker. I'm from Nibiru, a planet with a mostly Helium atmosphere)

#57 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 10:46 PM | Reply

#47 Some people deserve death for their crimes, Snoofy. And yes, it is a deterrent to sane people.
#48 | Posted by HeliumRat

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

#58 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-08-09 10:46 PM | Reply

"#47 Some people deserve death for their crimes"

Maybe, but I don't trust the government to figure out who among us needs to be killed... for our in good of course.

Funny how you think the government is controlling our minds with chemtrails, yet you still trust them to correctly execute only the right people, even when you know full well that innocent lives have been claimed by capital punishment.

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 10:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#56 *drinks. So fighting Hitler in WW2 makes all Americans, man woman and child, killers?

#60 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 10:48 PM | Reply

#59 I trust the court system about 90% of the time. Do you have a better system in mind?

#61 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 10:50 PM | Reply

The death penalty is a bit of a deterrent. IMO that positive trade-off doesn't outweigh the other negative trade-offs associated with it.

#62 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-09 10:51 PM | Reply

And how did we go from free speech to the death penalty? Oh, yeah, it was Snoofy.

Good troll, dude.

#63 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 10:52 PM | Reply

#59 I trust the court system about 90% of the time. Do you have a better system in mind?
#61 | Posted by HeliumRat

It is truly sad that you value life so little.

#64 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-08-09 10:52 PM | Reply

"I trust the court system about 90% of the time."

So one innocent killed for every nine murderers is okay to you.

What's that term for when you kill an innocent? It's murder, right?

#65 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 10:52 PM | Reply

How in the hell can anyone claim it is a deterrent when people have been committing murder for just as long as capital punishment has been instituted? Not only existent, but murder rates have ebbed and flowed.

Cause or correlation in terms of deterrence? Anyone looking at the data, circumstances, and culture surrounding capital punishment would naturally come to the conclusion that a perceived deterrence to murder is nothing more than a correlation.

#66 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-08-09 10:53 PM | Reply

#65 "Miscarriage of justice", I believe.

#67 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 10:54 PM | Reply

How the hell can anyone claim that having a justice system is a deterrent to crime when crimes have been committed for as long has there have been justice systems, since cave-man days when the tribal elder dispensed it? Sorry, but I have to drink to that one, as much as I appreciate your usually sharp wit.

#68 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 10:57 PM | Reply

"#47 Some people deserve death for their crimes"
Maybe, but I don't trust the government to figure out who among us needs to be killed... for our in good of course.
- Snoofy

Except you do. Charlie Gard? Or were you opposed to that?

#69 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-09 10:58 PM | Reply

And I blame Snoofy for derailing the forum.

#70 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 10:59 PM | Reply

Miscarriage of justice?
How so?
Were the jury instructions wrong, was the judge wrong?

Let's say a prosecutor hid exculpatory evidence from the defense, and wins their case. Did that prosecutor just commit murder? I say she did, what do you say?

#71 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 10:59 PM | Reply

"Charlie Gard? Or were you opposed to that?"

I don't know much about it, or care.
As I understand it, there was a terminally ill child that wasn't allowed to come here from the UK for an experimental treatment. Generally I'd say let him come, but I don't know enough about UK law to really say if that case turned on the angle you're angling at.

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 11:02 PM | Reply

Guys, let's stop playing Snoofy's game, shall we? I'm starting to get drunk.

#73 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 11:03 PM | Reply

"Anyone looking at the data, circumstances, and culture surrounding capital punishment would naturally come to the conclusion that a perceived deterrence to murder is nothing more than a correlation."

That's precisely why HeliumRat and the rest of the Trump Guzzlers never look at the data.

They like the conclusions and pre-conceived notions they have, no need to fact-check them.

#74 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 11:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

The angle is simple: When it comes to capital punishment, you don't trust the government to make the call. When it comes to healthcare life-and-death decisions, you not only trust the government to make the call, you feel government is supremely adept at doing so.

To me, it seems contradictory.

#75 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-09 11:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#75 Jeff, there's a big difference between killing an innocent baby, and killing a criminal. One, Snoofy supports. The other he doesn't.

#76 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 11:06 PM | Reply

The night and day difference is killing people vs. helping them.

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 11:06 PM | Reply

When it comes to healthcare life-and-death decisions, you not only trust the government to make the call, you feel government is supremely adept at doing so.

To me, it seems contradictory.

Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-09 11:04 PM | Reply

Medicare is a success story. The death penalty not so much.

#78 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-09 11:06 PM | Reply

Jeff, there's a big difference between killing an innocent baby, and killing a criminal. One, Snoofy supports. The other he doesn't.

In a way you're right.
The difference is who does the killing.
The state is not the same as the individual, and I hold the state to higher standards.

There's also the freedom issue, but you won't comprehend that, much as you can't comprehend the difference between an embryo and a child.

#79 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 11:09 PM | Reply

Your trolling has become boring.

#80 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 11:09 PM | Reply

#80 ditto.

#81 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 11:11 PM | Reply

"When it comes to healthcare life-and-death decisions, you not only trust the government to make the call"

That's not accurate either.
I trust the government to process insurance claims paperwork, something they already do.

The doctor, and ultimately the patient, still make care decisions.

#82 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 11:13 PM | Reply

"The difference is who does the killing."

#79 | Posted by snoofy

*drinks.

#83 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 11:14 PM | Reply

Your trolling has become boring.
#80 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 11:09 PM

Coming from the most boring troll on the DR, that is saying something.

#84 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-08-09 11:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So the state and the individual are the same to you? Are you Woke to Gaia, boy?

#85 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 11:16 PM | Reply

So the state and the individual are the same to you? Are you Woke to Gaia, boy?

#86 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 11:16 PM | Reply

#79 Wasn't it the government in both examples?

#87 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 11:17 PM | Reply

Oh, wait, I just looked up the case. His parents had him removed from life support after extensive brain damage and no hope. My bad.

#88 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 11:18 PM | Reply

So what does all this have to do with advertising on the subway again?

#89 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 11:19 PM | Reply

So what does all this have to do with advertising on the subway again?

Nothing, just Snoofy hijacking the thread again because he can't address the core issue.

#90 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-08-09 11:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Oh, yeah. The advertisement I was planning to put on on the subway that was pro death penalty for trolling....

Wait, what happened to my post?

#91 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 11:22 PM | Reply

"And how did we go from free speech to the death penalty?"

I was describing empiricism, using capital punishment as an example of how I form opinions. Ideology says one thing, and data agrees.

You decided to use my example as a soapbox to tell us that your opinion is not informed by empirical data, and in fact is contradictory to the data.

That's how.

#92 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 11:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

And... I refuted that with the cave-man tribal elder post. But you kept going....

#93 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 11:25 PM | Reply

The ACLU was prolly[sic] the first org ever called by the epitaph, "SJW".

Yeah, because an organization that supports First Amendment rights of Nazi's and white supremacists is a SJW.

I always thought they support the constitution, good, bad and ugly. Emphasis on the bad and ugly.

#94 | Posted by et_al at 2017-08-09 11:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"When it comes to healthcare life-and-death decisions, you not only trust the government to make the call"
-----
That's not accurate either.

Yes, it is.

I trust the government to process insurance claims paperwork, something they already do.

When it comes to single-payer, the government isn't processing paperwork submitted by Aetna; they are processing paperwork submitted by government.

The doctor, and ultimately the patient, still make care decisions.

#82 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

No, they don't. This is why I brought up Charlie Gard.

#95 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-09 11:35 PM | Reply

"I refuted that with the cave-man tribal elder post."

You may have authored such a post, but it sure as hell didn't refute anything.

#96 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 11:36 PM | Reply

You may have authored such a post, but it sure as hell didn't refute anything.

#96 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Yes it did.

#97 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-09 11:38 PM | Reply

#96 That justice systems deter crime? When you said they didn't?

#98 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 11:38 PM | Reply

"The doctor, and ultimately the patient, still make care decisions."

#82 | POSTED BY SNOOFY
No, they don't. This is why I brought up Charlie Gard.

Infants don't make patient care decisions in any medical system, so that's not a compelling example.

#99 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 11:40 PM | Reply

Except you do. Charlie Gard? Or were you opposed to that?

#69 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-09 10:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

The government of the UK didn't pull the plug on Gard. They agreed with the medical professionals findings that said there was no hope for him.

#100 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-09 11:40 PM | Reply

Well it certainly didn't refute anything that I said, because I didn't say anything remotely related to the contents of that post.

He was speaking to Rsty.

#101 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 11:42 PM | Reply

"#96 That justice systems deter crime? When you said they didn't?"

Yeah, about that.
I never said that.

#102 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-09 11:43 PM | Reply

#100 And his parents agreed, too. According to wiki.

#103 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 11:45 PM | Reply

#101 How am I supposed to know? You deflected the whole thread and got me drunk!

#104 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 11:46 PM | Reply

Conclusion: SJW's can't handle the Bill of Rights and it's 1st Amendment.

#105 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 11:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The government of the UK didn't pull the plug on Gard. They agreed with the medical professionals findings that said there was no hope for him.

#100 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

(I read it on the internet so it must be true :-) from what I read, his parents wanted to relocate him to the US for experimental treatment but were prohibited by the NHS and the UK court from doing so. The clock ran out and a point was reached where even experimental treatment was beyond help.

My point was/is that under single-payer systems that Snoofy favors, government makes all sorts of life and death decisions. In a state where capital punishment is law, government also makes life and death decisions. To me, it seems that support of one but not the other is contradictory. I was looking for a sensical explanation for the disconnect between the two. Perhaps one doesn't exist - like pro-life people who mark out an exception for ---------- pregnancies. It's just different. That would actually be an acceptable answer IMO.

#106 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-09 11:58 PM | Reply

"My point was/is that under single-payer systems that Snoofy favors, government makes all sorts of life and death decisions."

As opposed to under the current system for-profit corporations makes all sorts of life and death decisions, yeah?

Why do you trust Aetna more than the government? It was Aetna who just got caught lying to the government about the numbers they used to justify exiting certain markets, think that negatively affected anyone's health?

#107 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-10 12:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

How the hell can anyone claim that having a justice system is a deterrent to crime when crimes have been committed for as long has there have been justice systems, since cave-man days when the tribal elder dispensed it? Sorry, but I have to drink to that one, as much as I appreciate your usually sharp wit.
#68 | POSTED BY HELIUMRAT

Consider the extreme nature of the crime. Murdering someone is vastly more extreme both in action and mental ability than stealing a candy bar. Someone who is has the mental ability to kill someone MORE than likely is not in the frame of mind where a deterrent, even capital punishment, would be effective. Pretty much everyone is mentally capable of stealing a candy bar, but not without considering the consequences. I'd go so far to say that pretty much everyone is capable of murdering someone, but only when put in a mental state where nothing else is of concern, including deterrence (see the 'in the heat of passion' argument).

Can you see where your response in #68 is apples and oranges?

#108 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-08-10 03:33 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort