DC Sniper

I'm not debating the fact that you're smart, I'm debating the fact that you chose not to read what you know I mean, because I don't literally voice it, or in this case, write it down.

Look at what I bolded. To me there are no other factors to that point. Killing=murder, without getting into technical ,circumstantial or semantic details. Killing is killing, saying it is ok because the person getting killed has already killed other people and therefore the befitting punishment by law is killing them inreturn, doesn't make it any more or less, the ending of a life. (again some psycho torturing people isn't the exact same thing as giving a lethal injection, but it is still ending a life as a result).
On the ground of ending a life it is the same, of course the state doesn't just put him up to a wall in the centre of town and blow his brains out, of course not. People who assault others (example) get thrown in jail. They don't get thrown into a group of people who can just beat them up. Which would be an eye for an eye, no? Sure they get treated roughly, but that is because they committed a crime against humanity, or, in most cases, society.

I pick my language carefully. Killing and murder are NOT the same thing. They may be the same thing if you're not familiar iwth definitions, but in fact they are different.

For example, you have a man that swerved to avoid an incoming car that got into his lane, he hits a pedestrian and kills him. You have another man that is a Soldier in the US Army, and his unit gets in a firefight with armed Al Qaeda terrorists, and the US Soldier kills a terrorist with his M-16. You have a 87 year old Korean grandmaster in Tae Kwon Do (his limbs are certified as lethal weapons by law,) that is mistaken for a patsy by a robber, who comes at him with a knife, the grandmaster performs a reverse roundhouse to the assailant's skull, killing him instantly. You have a bodyguard for President Obama that retaliates against a would-be assassin that's aiming for hte President's head, and kills him instantly. Finally, you have a man that is cheating on his wife, and he decides to murder his wife and make it look like a domestic accident so he doesn't have to split the cost of his house with her in divorcing her.

All four instances are a case of a human being killing another human being. In law, the first instance can be argued to be manslaughter, (although the man would have a defense in court,) the third is textbook self-defense, the second and fourth are fully legitimate under the law and incur no penalties under ANY nation's laws, and the fourth is first degree murder. Only the fourth person is a murderer, the rest of these people are not,though they all killed a person.

About that health care bill, again I'm not super informed about those details, since I'm not American, but I didn't mean you have to stop having an army so you can give healthcare. What I meant is there has to be a healthier balance between the two. Sure the money is there, but it will be at the cost of something else, money has to come from somewhere. If there would be less military spending, there would be more left for, say, healthcare. That's not an opinion, that's just fact.

It's not a fact. I am not for the stuff that the Democrats are doing, but saying that the "right" way to fund their policy is to cut the military spending DURING A WAR is just fruity. There is a whole heap of crap the government spends on, and often they just choose to increase taxes. I don't know why you focused on the military of all things.

About the oil, I think you're forgetting the incredible influence a government can have on the use of resources. Think about advertising campaigns, added taxes, etcetc. A state can reduce the oil use by a lot, or gain a lot of money trying to do so (more tax=more income for state).

Just because oil companies pay campaign contributions and taxes doesn't mean that they are somehow controlled by the government. There are other huge and malicious entities, especially the tobacco companies, which unlike the oil companies serve literally no purpose. Private industry =/= government.

ed by the values, laws and society in general which you grow up in, making it the most differentiated of all common things. This does not take away the fact that seeing what I'm saying is more or less purely stating fact, should be part of this 'common' sense. Let's not forget Albert Einstein flunked math in highschool.

Albert Einstein didn't flunk math, he was so bored by the subject matter that he didn't bother. He is the greatest scientist in history, I think saying he was incapable of doing such stuff is a bit weak. Einstein's teacher told his parents taht Einstein was a retard. Common sense to me is different than what common sense is to you. The difference is, I refuse to accept things as common sense unless there's a hell of a lot of logic and reasoning behind it, and many people don't bother going that far. They just go to people with similar thinking and it's true because they collectively believe it, not because there's any real truth to it.