Life does not consist mainly--or even largely--of facts and happenings. It consists mainly of the storm of thoughts that are forever blowing through one's head. Samuel Clemens
If only you Cons showed so much concern for being 100% sure on death penalty cases.
Yeah, what if you're wrong?
What if you're wrong on your stance on Stem Cell Research, and if Smirky would actually support it, maybe, just maybe Terri could be saved from her vegetative state.
What if?
What if you Cons stopped being so insanely hypocritical?
Jeez, I didn't mean to get yoy so upset. When did I say I was all for the death penalty. Personally, I'd rather see anyone convicted of muder or rape, spend the rest of their life in a cold cell in Alaska. And during the day the inmates would make themselves useful by making small pieces gravel out of larger pieces of gravel. That way everyone gets their punishment, but if one is ever overturned, there is a chance to make it right.
Stem Cell research? Did you know that it is not against the law to conduct stem cell research? Bush is the first president to fund stem cell research to the tune of $15,000,000.00 per year. Before Bush, there was no government funding of stem cell research. Bush spports stem cell research more than any other president in history. If you can prove me wrong, give your sources and I will make a public post to that effect. This is a non-issue.
Hypocritical? Be specific and I will address it. Otherwise it is an invalid question.
Exactly... a valid question. I stand with the half of Democrats on Capitol Hill who stood up for Terri's civil right to live. Something that ALL liberals should have done along with them.
I must have missed your post outcrying the evils of the death penalty, and how you "hate" those who support it. Didn't notice you protesting outside the Governors Mansion in Texas, when the Texacutioner, Gov. Bush killed hundreds of Texans, some 20% believe to be retarded.
"Stem Cell research? Did you know that it is not against the law to conduct stem cell research? Bush is the first president to fund stem cell research to the tune of $15,000,000.00 per year. Before Bush, there was no government funding of stem cell research. Bush spports stem cell research more than any other president in history."
Bush does not support Embryonic Stem Cell Research. He supports the type of Stem Cell Research which is believed to yield only a small fraction of what embryonic stem cell research would.
And yes, Bush was the first to fund it, since it is such a new science. And the $15 Mil he threw at it is embarrassing. (BTW, nice play with all the zero's in 15 million. Frank Luntz would be proud.)
So, you ask me, (again,) what if I am wrong?
Thankfully, I now have the luxury of knowing over 30 judges have ruled on this. Judges that have actually seen the "facts" from qualified physicians, who have actually seen Terri Schiavo. I don't need some falsified affidavit from a lying nurse, to make my point. An affidavit that if were true, discredits, and implicates Schiavo's parents in a mass cover up attempt to kill Terri.
For Christ's sake, give it a rest. This issue is causing a schism in your party, and has demonstrated to the American people that the American Christian Taliban are extremists and so far from the mainstream, that they've got cactus pricks in their side.
What if america was wrong about the war on iraq... over 100,000 civilians dead... hmmm dotn see americans bitching about that... but 1 brain dead AMERICAN... uproar
Sorry I haven't responed before now, but I was out of town for mst of the weekend.
volterwd asked: What if america was wrong about the war on iraq... over 100,000 civilians dead... hmmm dotn see americans bitching about that... but 1 brain dead AMERICAN... uproar
My reply is that America is partly wrong in the war in Iraq. One of the myriad reasons for going to war (and the one that was stressed too much) was to eliminate the threat of WDM's. With option 1, there were none. With option 2 they are still in the hands of terrorists and we don't know where. The net effect is that We neither confirmed they exist nor eleiminated the treat, therefore the war did not deliver the hoped for results. As for 100,000 civilians dead, How many was it that Saddam was responsible for? Wasn't it in the millions? How many of those civilian causalties was at the hands of terrorist insurgents? Just out of curiosity and off the subject, I wonder how many civilians were killed in Eurpoe alone by both sides during WW2?
LJ replied: I must have missed your post outcrying the evils of the death penalty, and how you "hate" those who support it. Didn't notice you protesting outside the Governors Mansion in Texas, when the Texacutioner, Gov. Bush killed hundreds of Texans, some 20% believe to be retarded.
I'm not all for it, but I'm not against it either. My whole philosophy on the subject centers around the idea that people must be held accountable for their actions. If you kill someone in a deliberate and pre-meditated fashion, and are found guilty, then run through all appeals and are still determined to be guilty, the gig is up. I question your stat that "hunderds were retarded". Most convicted killers probably did have below average IQs as most killers do, but they are not retarded. If they had the smarts to be intelligent criminals they would have probably opted for embezzlement or identity theft instead of violent crimes. I will admit there are surely exception. I know of one individual in Arkansas around 1988 or so who had an extremely low IQ that did qualify as mental retadation, but the governor at the time refused to commute the sentence repeatedly. Who was that governor? The name slips my mind at the moment.
As for the 30 judges that have ruled against life for Terry Schiavo, all but 2 are appeals judges and can only look at evidence that was allowed in the first trial. Judge Greer disallowed the testimony of all doctors who disagreed with his pro-death stance, as well as the nurses who claim Terri was mistreated. The other judge who could have heard evidence was a federal judge who choose not to. For what ever reason that we can only speculate on, he did not want to get involved. I have my theories on why he wouldn't but I don't want to waste my time on that right now. To finish this subject out, I will submit that the Schindler's arguement is a legally weak one that is full of holes. That is why I (and they)have tried to appeal to the emotional and moral side of the debate over the fate of their daughter.
Lastly, you said I have spent enough time on this subject. Well, thank you for following along. I appreciate the fact that you are visiting sites with opposite views than your own. That speaks volumns for you. Many people only stay within their own ideological world and refuse to even debate with others of different thoughts. But I will get off this subject when I decide it is time. My blog seems to be driven by the topics in the national spotlight at the time. I am sure I will be moving on soon enough.
I looki forward to continuing our little personal email debate.
Lastly aliceinwonderland said " This whole thing is ridiculous and unfortunately the real tragedies in the world go unnoticed." This is true, this is also a sad commentary on mankind. It is also human nature. I wish we could, as a society solve all the problems of everyone. I don't even know how to set the priorities of who should get help. I'm open to suggestions.
I'm an Eagle Scout and a Marine now in civilian life. At first I seem kinda quiet, but I've been told I'm hard to shut up once you get to know me. I have an opinion about most things...but my opinions do mature the more I learn about the subject. I love to debate issues with people I disagree with, I think it helps me understand their point of view better and sometimes I actually change my mind. It also challenges me to be able to defend my own thoughts.
10 comments:
If only you Cons showed so much concern for being 100% sure on death penalty cases.
Yeah, what if you're wrong?
What if you're wrong on your stance on Stem Cell Research, and if Smirky would actually support it, maybe, just maybe Terri could be saved from her vegetative state.
What if?
What if you Cons stopped being so insanely hypocritical?
What if?
Jeez, I didn't mean to get yoy so upset. When did I say I was all for the death penalty. Personally, I'd rather see anyone convicted of muder or rape, spend the rest of their life in a cold cell in Alaska. And during the day the inmates would make themselves useful by making small pieces gravel out of larger pieces of gravel. That way everyone gets their punishment, but if one is ever overturned, there is a chance to make it right.
Stem Cell research? Did you know that it is not against the law to conduct stem cell research? Bush is the first president to fund stem cell research to the tune of $15,000,000.00 per year. Before Bush, there was no government funding of stem cell research. Bush spports stem cell research more than any other president in history. If you can prove me wrong, give your sources and I will make a public post to that effect. This is a non-issue.
Hypocritical? Be specific and I will address it. Otherwise it is an invalid question.
I repeat, What if you are wrong?
Your question is what liberals are affraid to answer because it could mean they are not in control of their ultimate destiny.
If they are wrong about Terri, they are wrong about abortion also, which may come with a penalty they can't acknowledge.
thats a pretty ambiguous post lol
Exactly... a valid question. I stand with the half of Democrats on Capitol Hill who stood up for Terri's civil right to live. Something that ALL liberals should have done along with them.
"When did I say I was all for the death penalty."
I must have missed your post outcrying the evils of the death penalty, and how you "hate" those who support it. Didn't notice you protesting outside the Governors Mansion in Texas, when the Texacutioner, Gov. Bush killed hundreds of Texans, some 20% believe to be retarded.
"Stem Cell research? Did you know that it is not against the law to conduct stem cell research? Bush is the first president to fund stem cell research to the tune of $15,000,000.00 per year. Before Bush, there was no government funding of stem cell research. Bush spports stem cell research more than any other president in history."
Bush does not support Embryonic Stem Cell Research. He supports the type of Stem Cell Research which is believed to yield only a small fraction of what embryonic stem cell research would.
And yes, Bush was the first to fund it, since it is such a new science. And the $15 Mil he threw at it is embarrassing. (BTW, nice play with all the zero's in 15 million. Frank Luntz would be proud.)
So, you ask me, (again,) what if I am wrong?
Thankfully, I now have the luxury of knowing over 30 judges have ruled on this. Judges that have actually seen the "facts" from qualified physicians, who have actually seen Terri Schiavo. I don't need some falsified affidavit from a lying nurse, to make my point. An affidavit that if were true, discredits, and implicates Schiavo's parents in a mass cover up attempt to kill Terri.
For Christ's sake, give it a rest. This issue is causing a schism in your party, and has demonstrated to the American people that the American Christian Taliban are extremists and so far from the mainstream, that they've got cactus pricks in their side.
What if america was wrong about the war on iraq... over 100,000 civilians dead... hmmm dotn see americans bitching about that... but 1 brain dead AMERICAN... uproar
This whole thing is ridiculous and unfortunately the real tragedies in the world go unnoticed.
Sorry I haven't responed before now, but I was out of town for mst of the weekend.
volterwd asked: What if america was wrong about the war on iraq... over 100,000 civilians dead... hmmm dotn see americans bitching about that... but 1 brain dead AMERICAN... uproar
My reply is that America is partly wrong in the war in Iraq. One of the myriad reasons for going to war (and the one that was stressed too much) was to eliminate the threat of WDM's. With option 1, there were none. With option 2 they are still in the hands of terrorists and we don't know where. The net effect is that We neither confirmed they exist nor eleiminated the treat, therefore the war did not deliver the hoped for results. As for 100,000 civilians dead, How many was it that Saddam was responsible for? Wasn't it in the millions? How many of those civilian causalties was at the hands of terrorist insurgents? Just out of curiosity and off the subject, I wonder how many civilians were killed in Eurpoe alone by both sides during WW2?
LJ replied: I must have missed your post outcrying the evils of the death penalty, and how you "hate" those who support it. Didn't notice you protesting outside the Governors Mansion in Texas, when the Texacutioner, Gov. Bush killed hundreds of Texans, some 20% believe to be retarded.
I'm not all for it, but I'm not against it either. My whole philosophy on the subject centers around the idea that people must be held accountable for their actions. If you kill someone in a deliberate and pre-meditated fashion, and are found guilty, then run through all appeals and are still determined to be guilty, the gig is up. I question your stat that "hunderds were retarded". Most convicted killers probably did have below average IQs as most killers do, but they are not retarded. If they had the smarts to be intelligent criminals they would have probably opted for embezzlement or identity theft instead of violent crimes. I will admit there are surely exception. I know of one individual in Arkansas around 1988 or so who had an extremely low IQ that did qualify as mental retadation, but the governor at the time refused to commute the sentence repeatedly. Who was that governor? The name slips my mind at the moment.
As for the 30 judges that have ruled against life for Terry Schiavo, all but 2 are appeals judges and can only look at evidence that was allowed in the first trial. Judge Greer disallowed the testimony of all doctors who disagreed with his pro-death stance, as well as the nurses who claim Terri was mistreated. The other judge who could have heard evidence was a federal judge who choose not to. For what ever reason that we can only speculate on, he did not want to get involved. I have my theories on why he wouldn't but I don't want to waste my time on that right now. To finish this subject out, I will submit that the Schindler's arguement is a legally weak one that is full of holes. That is why I (and they)have tried to appeal to the emotional and moral side of the debate over the fate of their daughter.
Lastly, you said I have spent enough time on this subject. Well, thank you for following along. I appreciate the fact that you are visiting sites with opposite views than your own. That speaks volumns for you. Many people only stay within their own ideological world and refuse to even debate with others of different thoughts. But I will get off this subject when I decide it is time. My blog seems to be driven by the topics in the national spotlight at the time. I am sure I will be moving on soon enough.
I looki forward to continuing our little personal email debate.
Lastly aliceinwonderland said " This whole thing is ridiculous and unfortunately the real tragedies in the world go unnoticed." This is true, this is also a sad commentary on mankind. It is also human nature. I wish we could, as a society solve all the problems of everyone. I don't even know how to set the priorities of who should get help. I'm open to suggestions.
Did I type "WDM's", I meant WMD's. Sorry for the typo.
Post a Comment