Political debate: Make Your Voice Heard

[borgslayer]

Well graduating high school is good for your records. Also graduating high school increases your chance of getting better jobs and jobs faster.

Most employers would prefer a high school graduate over a non graduate.

So if you dont graduate high school likely thing is you wont find a good job. The job you will find will be fast food jobs, or working as a janitor.

Sure teenagers in high school would say going to school "sucks" and they want to drop out because they are failing at it. Its not anyones fault if your doing terrible at school, and your about too quit attending school.

Come on people finish high school it will help you in the long run.

Its just embrassing if you dont graduate high school.

When I finish college im joining the military so thanks to my high school diploma I can get a career. The military i believe no longer accepts non-high school graduates.

If people dont finish high school they wont be able to write correctly, speak correctly, or know a lot of math which will in turn make it harder for them to get a job.

The only thing I dont like in high school is the required test you must take to graduate because those are useless and most of the question on those test are not even taught in a basic high school classroom.

[Zeke Zabertini]

Most college professors need a Doctorate in their area....

[IntrepidIsMe]

[Zeke Zabertini]

Argh. Six years of college just to be qualified and still you want more. You are a harsh master.

Okay, next topic. This is a broader issue, as it reaches beyond our borders. What should the nation's policy be regarding foreign intervention? Should we pull out of some of the countries we are currently occupying, or stay there? Should limits be sent on how many soldiers can be in a country at one time without a declaration of war? Should there be laws restricting our government's ability to send soldiers to non-warzones? If so, what should the nature of those laws be? Is the U.S.A. qualified to be the world's policeman?

[IntrepidIsMe]

Well, figuring that I'm willing to pay 26-30 thousand, I expect something,

[Hitchhiker]

It's always dependent on the situation, always. General guidelines are good, but you have to make sure they are flexible enough for every situation.

Peacekeeping missions are good. Sending soldiers to foreign countries to aid after a disaster is good. Although I don't agree with the decision to invade Iraq, now that the U.S. is there and needs to clean up the mess it made, it's soldiers are beginning to settle down and things may get good in the future.

I don't think that soldiers should necessarily occupy a lot of foreign countries, particularly because this makes other foreign countries nervous.

So I think it depends on context. As long as the country agrees to a U.S. presence, the public agrees to the presence, the soldiers aren't hindering anyone, and they are actually doing something, then it's fine for short-term occupation.

[Arellia]

[Zeke Zabertini]

All right, sorry for the neglect. The next topic, for those of you still tuning in, is capital punishment. Is the death penalty moral? Is it even constitutional? Who should be perscribed the death penalty, and what requirements should there be for conviction?

Aside: Thanks to Exalya for the issue.

[Puck]

No it's not moral. No one has the right to take anothers life. If you want self defense, there is life in prision without possibility of parol. Human life, no matter how weak, low, or filthy, must be preserved at all costs.

[Zeke Zabertini]

I disagree. If rehabilitation is a negligible possibility and it is unsafe to release someone back into society, they should be executed or deported to a nation willing to deal with them. Prisons are wasted space, a drain on resources for the sake of habitual and/or heinous lawbreakers. However, since the United States' justice system (and, for that matter, most justice systems in the world) exhibits such a lack of ability to rehabitate people, executing those guilty of anything less than a grave felony is impractical and unfair. Therefore, barring a major change in the operation of the justice system, I feel that only those guilty of murder, attempted murder, torture, rape, or treason should be executed if there is irrefutable (beyond a reasonable doubt) forensic evidence aganist them and at least two experts can testify that their chances of rehabilitation are negligible.
That's my long-winded answer.

[Puck]

[Zeke Zabertini]

Ah, yes. Thank you. I forgot to cover that point. Capital punishment is more expensive because the procedures associated with it (and the long delays between conviction and execution) eat up monetary and human resources. If it is to be practical, executions must be painless, cheap, and carried out one year from the time of conviction (to allow time for appeal). Quite frankly, I think the best method people ever came up with was the guillotine. It costs next to nothing after initial purchase, and is swift; allowing the condemned no time to suffer.

[Arellia]

Hm. Wow. I agree with Zeke here. Especially to the above post. (Although...guiltine is a little radical, but I do advocate something swift...)

I think it's perfectly valid to execute a convicted, sure-fire murderer. It's a deterent (Yeah, yeah, so maybe it doesn't deter EVERYONE, but it is somewhat daunting, y'think?) as well as a suiting punishment.

[Puck]

It doesn't cause there to be lower crime rates in states that have it versus states that don't. And who's right is it to say whether a person deserves to die or not, especially when there is an alternate to it. Life is perhaps one of the most valuable things on earth, and yet we can decide whether or not to deprive someone of it. Also, I know this is usually a very slim chance, but just say that someone were to truely repent later during their life? If they are dead, they don't get even a chance to repent. I know it is doubtful this would ever happen, but I would hate to have to feel that my actions would have deprived someone of repentance. It is my beleif through my faith in God that all life is sacred, and that life itself must be preserved at all cost.

[Hitchhiker]

I disagree with capital punishment, simply because I don't believe in an eye for an eye, I don't think we are really doing anything to help the people here. If it is meant for a deterrent, it isn't very effective. After all, you can only execute someone once, then they're dead.

However, I'm equally cynical about the federal imprisonment policies. Think about this: people who murder get to live in a government-funded place, where they are fed and clothed at the government's expense, and protected from such insane things as crossing-guards, airports, and further criminal activities.

Yeah, I know that prison isn't all fun and games, but seriously . . . meanwhile, we innocent people must make our own living, on dangerous streets, where at any moment we may be the victim of a murderer, who plans to spend the rest of his life in a government-funded jail!

[Zeke Zabertini]

It's not about deterrance or morality. It's about efficiency. Besides, if someone on death row wants to repent, they'll have plenty of time to do it under my system. They'll have a whole year to tick off those sins on the prayer checklist. Jails are rediculous. They don't rehabilitate criminals, they just store them for a limited amount of time, then release them back into society just as dangerous as before, and with a criminal record that makes it extremely difficult for them to make a ligitimate living.

[Republican_Man]

This may seem "Liberal," but I call it Christain. I believe that Capital Punishment should ONLY be used for terrorists that kill civilians and EXTREME US murderers. The rest should be placed in a penal colony in Alaska with no TV, etc--that would be a harder punishment.

[Puck]

It is about morality. Human life, no matter how disgusting, is not something you can just discard because it is more "efficient" that way. I don't even want murderers released, life in prision without perole is perfect, and it endangers no one.

[Republican_Man]

^Yeah, I pretty much agree with you, but prisons are too nice. There's TV, etc, so that's why they should have to work on a penal colony in Alaska.

[Puck]

It doesn't have to be nice...I would not care if they were sent to a penal colony on some hot-humid island in the pacific without air-conditioning. Just give them the basic food, water, shelter, and security and that is fine.

[Zeke Zabertini]

I feel like if you're going to store them, they might as well be comfortable. Otherwise it's not very humane at all. Ideally, you need a rehabilitation system. The U.S. system is incredibly ineffective in preventing crime because it walks a line between extreme deterrance (execution, labor camps, penal colonies in Alaska, etc.) and dedicated rehabilitation (wholesome, educational facilities staffed with expert therapists and psychoanalysts). Thus, criminals see their potential profit as outweighing a few months in a cell; and leave just as criminally-minded as when they entered. I'm all for rehabilitation, but if you want to lower the crime rate you must go one way or the other.

[Arellia]

I'm afraid I again agree with Zeke on a point--go one way or the other. Prefferably not the other. They did nothing to deserve everything free without working for it after what they did.

Here's a fair way to do it: I say, we put 'em on a raft in the middle of the atlantic ocean, and if they come back alive, they can live. Let us not forget to release a fe extra sharks, though. Great whites, maybe some bull sharks...ooh! Little lemon sharks! I'll supply 'em!

...kidding, of course. Demonstrating I have little or no sympathy for mass murderers and terroritsts. Or even single-time murderers. It's horrendous to take a life, no matter how many you take. It's a harder decision there, though, I guess I'll admit. I'm still for it in either case, though, when the intent was malevolent, and if the evidence is heavy enough.

And I must bring up something else. If someone was going to kill you, and you could defend yourself, would you kill them first? I was brought up in a family that taught me very simply: if you've got a gun or another method of defense and you're in trouble, don't be afraid to use it. Is that valid? Or is it just as bad as capital punishment, because you've still taken someone's life?

[Zeke Zabertini]

Good question. I think the moral thing to do is not take a life, even if you must sacrifice your own in the process. Even so, if someone comes at me with a knife and I have a gun, you can bet I'll use it. That damn self-preservation instinct...

[Arellia]

...moral? I'm not certain. You consider it's either them or you, so one way or the other, someone is going to die--the wrong-doer, or the innocent one. (Presumably) I suppose my uncertainty stems from my past, but go figure...

[Zeke Zabertini]

Two wrongs don't make a right, so I've been taught.