Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
=L210;35809005]These aren't extreme cases. Gay people are trying to adopt children who are unwanted or orphaned. This is common! These children would be better off outside of foster care even if it meant being with a single parent or a same-sex couple.
What do people do when a parent dies or isn't around? They find a family member or a close family friend of the same gender.
What part of all this are you not getting, L210. To try and explain once again, the obvious, yes, we all know there are exceptions to every "rule". In some cases, yes, being with a single parent would be a better option than being with an abusive heterosexual couple. BUT...there is no way around that -- as said -- a homosexual couple -- adopting new-born children is likely to screw them up in ways that ought to be just common sense. Sorry if you don't like it, but what the gay man said on the earlier articulation is reality. Yes, two gay men (gay women), who have children by normal sex in earlier times, are probably very good loving fathers/mothers to their grown kids. I have known one or two (one used to be a hunting/fishing buddy) But such cannot apply to a situation where the issue is adopting/or surrogate mother-wise, and the couple themselves cannot possibly understand/empathize with what a growing boy or girl is going to experience in real life. As said, "never did nature say one thing and wisdom another...".
Quote:
I've seen heterosexual couples humping each other in clubs. They may or may not have been doing it to outrage people, but it was disturbing either way.
What was this club? This sounds a little suspicious to me. LOL Maybe you were using bad judgment going in there to begin with, reckon? In any event, I said earlier that outrageous displays between hetero couples is to be frowned on and invite public scorn as well, did I not?
Quote:
Dennis Prager's argument had a huge flaw. He had no statistics to back up his assertion that the lack of the death penalty leads to more innocent people dying than having the death penalty. His reasoning is that prisoners kill each other, but hardly any of them are eligible for capital punishment.
The stats are self-evident if one cares to really look at and face them. Ted Bundy is the perfect example. And read over this one when you have a chance (if you care to), which makes a lengthy list:
That wasn't in the poll question. If the majority of people preferred the "guarantee" of the death penalty, then they would have chosen it. When you kill an innocent person, guess what happens? There is less chance that the real perpetrator will be caught. This is not a death penalty case, but this is what happens when the system imprisons the wrong person.
Mistakes happen, and I agree totally that those wrongly imprisoned should get compensation. No disagreement on that one at all. If you think that any human judicial system is always going to be fail-safe, then it is you who lives in a total fantasy world...
So pleeeeeeze, name the innocent person you are referring to who was actually executed?. THEN we can discuss the particulars. What is so wrong with that and why do you (and a few others), refrain from doing so...?
Quote:
Since Michael Morton was alive, he had the opportunity to fight his case, and the real perpetrator was found. Imagine what would have happened if Morton was executed after 10 or so years on death row. Norwood would have still been out there.
But he wasn't executed, was he? Thanks to the safeguards built into the system. On the other hand, it is anti-capital punishment zealots who have the blood of Ted Bundy's victims on their hands. See above list of quite a few other. And again as well, I totally agree with monetary compensation to those wrongfully convicted, and a lot of it. As a somewhat related aside? Remember those Duke Lacross (sp?) players who were railroaded by a sociopathic DA named Nifong because he wanted to score points with black constiuents? I think the guy should be in prison right now. Would you agree as well....?
Yeah, good luck getting it to them given, as the said pipelines from anywhere are anathema to the powers in control of our federal government...which have blocked them for years and do not want American energy independence. But great...it wouldn't change in the least that Texas (and the other states), would have their (our) own, and would be energy self-sufficient of our own accord (drilling in the Gulf, for example).
So if what you say is true, then why isn't it being done now? In some ways that is a rhetorical question, as the powers of the northeast and west coast are much more worried about some vague "protecting the environment" than they are about actually doing something about it all in terms of getting the oil and gas.
Good luck with that!
I'll tell you why, Canadian companies are the ones pushing for the pipelines, or did you not know that? The pipeline helps Canada mostly. However, if the north and south separated I assume that there may be pipelines from south to north anyway, for instance there are pipelines from Russia to Western Europe. In the case there was a closed border between north/south, then I think the powers that be would recognize that buildings the pipeline would be in America's best interest. Or, maybe Canada would join the northern states?
Again, name the innocent person. Why does no one actually step up to the plate and name them? If it was done, then it can be examined on a case by case basis. And too? "Murder" is a legal term to refer to the unlawful taking of an innocent life by another individual(s). On the other hand, capital punishment is an approved state administered punishment for the most extreme examples of such (i.e, most murder does not fall under the heading of being punishable by death).
This analogy you present is callous and misapplied to the max, as concerns moral priorities. And in any event, capital punishment is not about punishment as commonly understood. It is about simple justice. Some crimes are so brutal and heinous that death is what they deserve...and they are the ones who made the choice. And no question they have been "deterred." For sure, those who commit these type crimes are given many more considerations and safeguards than their victims ever did. If you can't see the distinction, then nothing more I can say...
Another poster posted a link to a list of several hundred innocent people. I'm not going to go to the trouble of reposting it, you are a big boy and can find it...
With boundaries being redrawn all around the world, I'm curious to see where my fellow Texans stand on the idea of nationhood for Texas. Texas has the world's 14th largest economy, between Russia and Australia and only receives $0.94 back for every $1.00 in taxes it sends out of state.
Maybe it would send a message (hit up side the head) to the loonies in DC.
LOL Yeah buddy, in regarding the original topic of the thread (Texas seceding) in my part of Texas we call it beer joint talk, so yep, basically same thing.
What part of all this are you not getting, L210. To try and explain once again, the obvious, yes, we all know there are exceptions to every "rule". In some cases, yes, being with a single parent would be a better option than being with an abusive heterosexual couple. BUT...there is no way around that -- as said -- a homosexual couple -- adopting new-born children is likely to screw them up in ways that ought to be just common sense. Sorry if you don't like it, but what the gay man said on the earlier articulation is reality. Yes, two gay men (gay women), who have children by normal sex in earlier times, are probably very good loving fathers/mothers to their grown kids. I have known one or two (one used to be a hunting/fishing buddy) But such cannot apply to a situation where the issue is adopting/or surrogate mother-wise, and the couple themselves cannot possibly understand/empathize with what a growing boy or girl is going to experience in real life. As said, "never did nature say one thing and wisdom another...".
What do you not get? Where do you think homosexual couples are adopting their children? These are unwanted children who would most likely be left under the control of the state because there are not enough people adopting in the U.S. Homosexuals are not adopting children from loving, stable homes. And, paying for a surrogate mother or sperm has little to do with adoption laws.
Quote:
What was this club? This sounds a little suspicious to me. LOL Maybe you were using bad judgment going in there to begin with, reckon? In any event, I said earlier that outrageous displays between hetero couples is to be frowned on and invite public scorn as well, did I not?
Joe's Volcano where most of the attendees are under 30. I went there about 7 years ago. I know you're much older than I am, so your experiences are very different.
Quote:
The stats are self-evident if one cares to really look at and face them. Ted Bundy is the perfect example. And read over this one when you have a chance (if you care to), which makes a lengthy list:
How many of these people are death penalty eligible? If none of them were eligible for the death penalty, the prosecutor didn't seek the death penalty, or the person wasn't sentenced to the death penalty, then then this does not prove that getting rid of the death penalty would lead to public safety concerns. We have the death penalty now, and these people are still not getting sentenced to it.
When Carlos DeLuna was executed, the person who most likely committed the crime, Carlos Hernandez, went on to commit more violent crimes. When Randall Adams was falsely convicted and sent to death row, the person who most likely committed the crime, David Harris, murdered another person. How did death row protect the public in these two cases?
Quote:
Mistakes happen, and I agree totally that those wrongly imprisoned should get compensation. No disagreement on that one at all. If you think that any human judicial system is always going to be fail-safe, then it is you who lives in a total fantasy world...
That is my whole point! That is why I don't believe in capital punishment. The system will always be prone to mistakes.
Quote:
So pleeeeeeze, name the innocent person you are referring to who was actually executed?. THEN we can discuss the particulars. What is so wrong with that and why do you (and a few others), refrain from doing so...?
I already did. OMG! I'm not going to do this anymore with you. The person was already named twice! When you find that person's name in one of my previous posts, then we can discuss that person. I'll be patient.
Quote:
But he wasn't executed, was he? Thanks to the safeguards built into the system. On the other hand, it is anti-capital punishment zealots who have the blood of Ted Bundy's victims on their hands. See above list of quite a few other. And again as well, I totally agree with monetary compensation to those wrongfully convicted, and a lot of it.
What safeguards? The man was in prison for 25 years. The average time on death row is about 10-15 years. Because they imprisoned the wrong person, the real murderer went on to kill again. Those safeguards did nothing to protect the second person who was murdered by the real murderer.
Quote:
As a somewhat related aside? Remember those Duke Lacross (sp?) players who were railroaded by a sociopathic DA named Nifong because he wanted to score points with black constiuents? I think the guy should be in prison right now. Would you agree as well....?
This just sounds like race baiting. I believe anyone who has committed a criminal and immoral act should be punished. Prosecutors are rarely punished for misconduct regardless of the defendant's or victim's race. They have broad and almost unregulated discretion. However, the DA in the Michael Morton case was sent to prison, IIRC. But, what's your problem? Weren't the lacrosse players protected by the "safeguards" in the system? There are many worse cases of prosecutorial misconduct that have led to people being locked up for decades, placed on death row, and even executed. For you to pull this unrelated case out of the blue is highly suspicious.
Another poster posted a link to a list of several hundred innocent people. I'm not going to go to the trouble of reposting it, you are a big boy and can find it...
Innocent people? Or those who claimed to be innocent and/or, upon the flimsiest of evidence, are presented as "questionable" by an anti-capital punishment media (such as the New York Times, etc) by the tactic of "weasel words". (I was in journalism myself for quite a few years, still am in lots of ways, and know full well how this works). Ann Coulter addressed this one pretty well in an earlier link presented.
However, (see the link I furnished), there is no question that many innocent people have been murdered by those whose death sentence were either commuted, or they escaped or were paroled. An absolutely picture perfect example is that of Kenneth McDuff in Texas. McDuff was pure sociopathic monster who was released and then immediately went on a killing spree. Here is the story in a Texas Monthly article (as I understand it, the writer of the piece said he changed his mind about capital punishment as a direct result of the McDuff case).
Anyway, the real issue is how many innocent people have actually been executed? You are a big boy, I am sure you can figure out the difference.
I'll tell you why, Canadian companies are the ones pushing for the pipelines, or did you not know that? The pipeline helps Canada mostly. However, if the north and south separated I assume that there may be pipelines from south to north anyway, for instance there are pipelines from Russia to Western Europe. In the case there was a closed border between north/south, then I think the powers that be would recognize that buildings the pipeline would be in America's best interest. Or, maybe Canada would join the northern states?
Fair enough...but if there was ever any separation then it would behove the two nations (South or North, Red or Blue), to indeed have a mutually beneficial economic/defensive alliance (just as the South sought to have in 1861, but was rejected by the north because they needed to keep the South's tax money so chose invasion).
But anyway, you didn't answer the real question. That is, why do so many Blue State politicians not seem to want American energy independence by drilling and building pipelines? They could do this today if they wanted. Bottom line is, that in more ways than energy, the Blue Staters would rue the day if the Red States said to hell with all this Look down on us Red State Rednecks as they want, but it is the same which feed, clothe, and provide the energy resources. They would be fish out of water (although probably so many of the breed don't know how to fish! LOL).
=L210;35822970]What do you not get? Where do you think homosexual couples are adopting their children? These are unwanted children who would most likely be left under the control of the state because there are not enough people adopting in the U.S. Homosexuals are not adopting children from loving, stable homes. And, paying for a surrogate mother or sperm has little to do with adoption laws.
Again, you miss the point. Efforts for homosexual couples to adopt and/or use surrogates/sperm donors is already being advanced. The major point is that same-sex couples cannot possibly provide the needed balance which require a male/female to accomplish the same in terms of stable family. But it is coming, and will eventually be approved in some states...that is the "slippery slope" truism. You are mixing apples and oranges here...
Quote:
Joe's Volcano where most of the attendees are under 30. I went there about 7 years ago. I know you're much older than I am, so your experiences are very different.
So be a little more specific as to what happened? Was the hetero couple you mentioned actually having real sex...or just "dry humping"? Regardless, as I said earlier, I am just as disgusted by these type displays as well. BUT...all one has to do is look at certain recordings taken in gay bars or gatherings, to easily see which has the monopoly on overt, vulgar, displays, which either do not give a damn about public sensibilities or want to make a "protest" against them by rubbing it in every one's face.
Quote:
How many of these people are death penalty eligible? If none of them were eligible for the death penalty, the prosecutor didn't seek the death penalty, or the person wasn't sentenced to the death penalty, then then this does not prove that getting rid of the death penalty would lead to public safety concerns. We have the death penalty now, and these people are still not getting sentenced to it.
What in the heck are you talking about??? If they were not eligible for the death penalty as per crimes in the given state which warranted such, then how is this relevant at all?
Quote:
When Carlos DeLuna was executed, the person who most likely committed the crime, Carlos Hernandez, went on to commit more violent crimes.
From the research I have seen, it does indeed appear that DeLuna may have been innocent, so I applaud that you actually furnished a real name. And if so? It is one of those appalling things that do haunt those of us who support capital punishment...and his family should be compensated to the max. Same applies to the Randall Adams case (but that one is more questionable).
Quote:
When Randall Adams was falsely convicted and sent to death row, the person who most likely committed the crime, David Harris, murdered another person. How did death row protect the public in these two cases?
Let me flip the question a bit? Would you object to the death penalty being administered to the true guilty parties in this case, as you see them? Why or why not? Also,
Quote:
That is my whole point! That is why I don't believe in capital punishment. The system will always be prone to mistakes.
Right you are. Sooooo, how many innocent people have been murdered because of the mistakes made by liberal policies of parole/furloughs/etc (see Kenneth McDuff case)?
And once again, I stand totally by that many capital punishment abolishionists, use the stalking-horse of "life without parole" as a seemingly reasonable alternative, really do it for strategic, public relations, reasons...and would eventually work toward its abolition as well. Blunt truth is, they really don't believe in the concept of punishment at all...but that those who commit heinous crimes are "victims" in the own right (products of a racist/faulty/corrupt/etc, society as opposed to that some people are just flat out mean, sadistic, and enjoy killing/raping/torturing other people for their own pleasure and/or profit. So whose life really matters more? Their victims or them?
Quote:
I already did. OMG! I'm not going to do this anymore with you. The person was already named twice! When you find that person's name in one of my previous posts, then we can discuss that person. I'll be patient.
I did and replied to them. So see the replies!
Quote:
What safeguards? The man was in prison for 25 years. The average time on death row is about 10-15 years. Because they imprisoned the wrong person, the real murderer went on to kill again. Those safeguards did nothing to protect the second person who was murdered by the real murderer.
Patience is a virtue, so see earlier reply. And it is self-evident that safeguards saved the man from being executed...and I also said he deserves tremendous compensation. So again, would you support the real murderer getting the death penalty? If not, why not?
Quote:
This just sounds like race baiting. I believe anyone who has committed a criminal and immoral act should be punished.
Nothing "race-baiting" about it. In fact, it is playing the "race-card" on your part. And far as the punishment part goes? Who disagrees with that?
Quote:
Prosecutors are rarely punished for misconduct regardless of the defendant's or victim's race. They have broad and almost unregulated discretion. However, the DA in the Michael Morton case was sent to prison, IIRC.
And that is but true justice, nothing at all earth-shaking about that comment. And you are right that many zealous prosecutors (just as bully-type cops), are not always punished. But I definitely believe they should be, so we don't disagree on this one. I have a deep rooted disgust and aversion for those in power who abuse it for their own ends....
Quote:
But, what's your problem? Weren't the lacrosse players protected by the "safeguards" in the system?
No, they were eventually protected by the fact the counter-evidence of their guilt became too strong to ignore. Such as the Tawana Brawley case (brought about by the illustrious Al Sharpton), and quite a few others of the same genre.
Quote:
There are many worse cases of prosecutorial misconduct that have led to people being locked up for decades, placed on death row, and even executed. For you to pull this unrelated case out of the blue is highly suspicious.
ROFLMAO. Yeah, I am sure it is! If you go back and read the reason I mentioned it, then perhaps you might actually comprehend why. And oh lord, pleeeeese get off this "race card" crap. If it is "highly suspicious" to you? Then you probably need counseling. What in the world makes you think I give two flips what you think of a being "suspicious"? In fact, I really pity your seeing belief that it is even cowers anyone, anymore. To wind it up, here is a great column and excerpt from it, by Fred Reed which sums up what lots of people think, and those of your persuasion seem to be inoculated from understanding:
I decided long ago that if, while I was doing a radio interview, a caller-in told me, “You a racist!” I would hesitate as if puzzled, and say “…So what?” This would add immeasurably to the planetary supply of stunned silence. The expectation is that anyone so charged will fall on his knees and beg for mercy. It would be a lesser offense to be caught sexually molesting autistic three-year-old girls while attending a Nazi torch-rally.
Herewith another and yet worse confession:: I do not see, or care, why it is thought my duty to like, or dislike, groups because of their race, creed, color, sex, sexual aberration, or national origin. Nor do I think it their duty to like me. I especially do not understand why the federal government should decide with whom I ought to associate.
So if it behooves you, or you think it makes a point, to subtly imply that I am a "racist" (whatever the hell that means) then hey? I don't give a damn and am not in the least intimidated by it. In fact, in my teaching career, I have probably done more -- or at least as much -- for minority kids than any of the breast-beating leftists do, in reality.
Last edited by TexasReb; 07-27-2014 at 06:15 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In any event, I said earlier that outrageous displays between hetero couples is to be frowned on and invite public scorn as well, did I not? 
When you find that person's name in one of my previous posts, then we can discuss that person. I'll be patient. 
