kvnchrist

There seems to be several variations of this title, depending on which party is in power and what is going on with the world. It seems every time a controversy appears the one's doing the organization are the one's that use this term the most. Are patriots those who blindly goosestep over a cliff for their illustrious leaders, or are the patriots those that point out concerns that such activity might bring?

That's your opinion, regulation is not a power explicitly granted in the Constitution. All powers not expressed in the Constitution are to be handled by the individual states. The federal government could make the environment better for businesses by keeping their hands off the market. Clearly, the government's regulations here have only chased jobs overseas, even before the collapse of the economy, which was caused by artificially inflating our currency. This wouldn't have been possible if our government followed the constitution, which states that only gold and silver may be legal tender. The government bypassed the constitution a long time ago, by bribing the states with their own tax money. Block grants here. Highway assistance there. I bet if the framers of the constituion knew what the government would do with the general welfare clause, they would have worded the thing differently

As a freind of mine was fond of saying, A GUN IN HAND IS WORTH TWO COPS ON THE WAY.

My point is you have no problem putting murderers to death, yet you don't have a problem with people with a good chance of being innocent being executed. I've already discussed this. There is no reason to continue. We both are working from assumptions and the only facts are in my favor. The judicial system is flawed, but that is all we have. I started a thread on the judicial system a while back. I don't think I got many responses on it All this is is a circular argument leading back to the same ideal. You are against executions, and you are using the possibility of innocence as a unworkable reason why they should be stopped. You want something else that would not be so obvious tell everybody to see the movie THE OXBOW INCIDENT. That is a very moving movie staring Glenn Ford that deals with this very subject. Here is a summery the oxbow incident

That is incorrect if that is what your saying. I could steal a pen from a friend, or steal a ten dollars. What does that mean? Do I instantly become a crazed robber? Also, your saying our justice system works on bribes and influence? Why do you trust it so much then? Dude you can't win arguments by just repeating the same thing and calling other incorrect. This is exactly what you are doing.. I said that the justice system is flawed and for the most part shows favoritism to those that have the power and influence to alter it. Look at O.J. Simpson. Was he found innocent of murder, because he was, or was it because of his status and the fact that some thought him being railroaded because of the color of his skin. Look at these cutesy pie little actresses that continually get busted doing drugs and alcohol and keep out of jail because they have status and a high priced lawyer. Look at these corporate executives that have fleeced the average citizen, but don't go to trial, because they have high ranking connections. Look at the Casey Anthony case. Would she have got off, if she looked like Phyllis Diller, on a bad hair day? Being a lobbyist isn't logical. It's political and has to do with the ethics they bring to the table. There are corporate lobbyist and their are activist lobbyist. Do you think they are all of the same attitude or ideals. So your saying the court system doesn't work? I honestly don't get your argument then. Logic "Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity" If your goal is to become rich for personal gain, what is the most logical way to get there? In some places and times it doesn't work. It depends on the jury and what their attitude. It always has. Lobbiest are there to push an agenda. I don't think they will get rich off pushing it, unless they have a stake in the matter. Most are just hired hands working for people who don't have the time, or don't want to be seen trying to influence members of congress. It's a shell game, with the lobbyist playing the shell. Forget lobbyists for a second. Think about it in general. What about bankers? So once again, if you want to become rich quickly for personal gain, what is the most logical way to reach that point? ] Dude. Your a good person, but you are a logic addict. we can go around and around with this circular argument till the cows come home, but it won't bring us any closer to closure. Logic is a good tool for deduction, but it is rarely used (unless you are a Vulcan) in real life situations. People are not rational or logical. They are emotional beings, trying to find a place in the Sun and possibly someone to share it with. You can continue on debating this, with someone else. I'd rather part here in each others good graces and I wish you luck and happiness in your life. Take care.

You don't abort unborn children, you abort fetuses. Yes, you stopped a possible human from being born, but condoms do that as well. No, not all killing is murder. Killing someone to stop the deaths of other makes sense. If you already have someone in custody killing him will not stop more deaths. Its not just a talking point. If they are possibly innocent, then you could possibly be killing someone who is innocent. Do you not understand that? You could be accidentally doing something that you are wanting to execute people for, murder. And where are you going with this? I understand your reasoning all too well. If everybody that is convicted is possibly innocent and it is wrong to kill innocent people, then the bottom line in your entire argument is that you can't kill anybody, because of that mindset.

This is something I found that might interest you. Have you ever wanted to know where a phrase came from. This might just help you out. origins of sayings

That is incorrect if that is what your saying. I could steal a pen from a friend, or steal a ten dollars. What does that mean? Do I instantly become a crazed robber? Also, your saying our justice system works on bribes and influence? Why do you trust it so much then? Dude you can't win arguments by just repeating the same thing and calling other incorrect. This is exactly what you are doing.. I said that the justice system is flawed and for the most part shows favoritism to those that have the power and influence to alter it. Look at O.J. Simpson. Was he found innocent of murder, because he was, or was it because of his status and the fact that some thought him being railroaded because of the color of his skin. Look at these cutesy pie little actresses that continually get busted doing drugs and alcohol and keep out of jail because they have status and a high priced lawyer. Look at these corporate executives that have fleeced the average citizen, but don't go to trial, because they have high ranking connections. Look at the Casey Anthony case. Would she have got off, if she looked like Phyllis Diller, on a bad hair day? Being a lobbyist isn't logical. It's political and has to do with the ethics they bring to the table. There are corporate lobbyist and their are activist lobbyist. Do you think they are all of the same attitude or ideals. So your saying the court system doesn't work? I honestly don't get your argument then. Logic "Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity" If your goal is to become rich for personal gain, what is the most logical way to get there? In some places and times it doesn't work. It depends on the jury and what their attitude. It always has. Lobbiest are there to push an agenda. I don't think they will get rich off pushing it, unless they have a stake in the matter. Most are just hired hands working for people who don't have the time, or don't want to be seen trying to influence members of congress. It's a shell game, with the lobbyist playing the shell.

My concern is if they are really criminals In order to determine if they are criminals, you would have to be apart of the jury and have your say. This system is flawed and it really depends on the attitudes of those on the jury. Let's get down to brass tacks. If you are against executions, it doesn't matter if they are found guilty or innocent and the fog of possible innocence is just a talking point to try to validate your argument. It Is the same thing for using the line, IT WON'T BRING ANY ONE BACK, and the exchanging of revenge for justice. This is all ideology here. One says all killing is murder and one says murder is murder, but killing for murdering is justified. This whole thing is the reverse topic of the Abortion issue. Both look at humanity taking a life. The only difference is that one is an adult and one is an unborn child. It is the state that allows it and it is all about one persons, or another rights. I don't want this to spread out in the abortion thing, but I do think the comparison is justified. This is pretty much a non-debatable subject, because there are no facts to bring to the table. Just attitude, ideals and Conjecture

That is incorrect if that is what your saying. I could steal a pen from a friend, or steal a ten dollars. What does that mean? Do I instantly become a crazed robber? Also, your saying our justice system works on bribes and influence? Why do you trust it so much then? Dude you can't win arguments by just repeating the same thing and calling other incorrect. This is exactly what you are doing.. I said that the justice system is flawed and for the most part shows favoritism to those that have the power and influence to alter it. Look at O.J. Simpson. Was he found innocent of murder, because he was, or was it because of his status and the fact that some thought him being railroaded because of the color of his skin. Look at these cutesy pie little actresses that continually get busted doing drugs and alcohol and keep out of jail because they have status and a high priced lawyer. Look at these corporate executives that have fleeced the average citizen, but don't go to trial, because they have high ranking connections. Look at the Casey Anthony case. Would she have got off, if she looked like Phyllis Diller, on a bad hair day? Being a lobbyist isn't logical. It's political and has to do with the ethics they bring to the table. There are corporate lobbyist and their are activist lobbyist. Do you think they are all of the same attitude or ideals.

Seems like on star is getting more out of you than you want. Read this Creepy: OnStar Will Track You Whether You're Subscribed or Not

So every criminal must be guilty per default. Why not shut down the trial system then? Must be billions. New procedure could be that every murdere/raptist is shot on site by the police. :thumbsup: Will you guys ever stop repeating this all or nothing, mindset. Being guilty or innocent is the duty of the court and the jury to decide. The penalties for being found guilty have never been administered to those who found innocent,

I second that

People are not logical. They are emotional and have their own value system. Some value their welfare above all else and these are the one's that usually steal. Did I say any different. . Our justice system works on the influence, the money and the likability of those on trial. Hoe many politicians, athletes, and socially prominent people have you seen go to trial and get their hands slapped, when the rest of us would be thrown under the penitentiary, I'm saying that thieves steal for themselves, without regard for those they steal from. Wither their conscience plays on them, afterwords, is irrelevant. The deed was done.

First you say it is happening everyday all throughout the world then you give me an estimate of something possibly happening, but on who's judgment are these people innocent? I like how people who are in the opposition are portrayed by certain people. If you don't think the way I do, then you are heartless or uncaring. Idealist on both sides of the political spectrum have used this for decades to discredit the other side. The right thinks the left is immoral degenerates that are trying to give the world away and the left thinks the right is a bunch of ignorant Cro-Magnon inbreeds that care only for the rich. NO ONE WANTS TO SEE ANOTHER PUT TO DEATH.. so you can take that talking point and put it back in your quiver of fallacies. You can do this scenario thing all you want to, I've dealt with hundreds of these trying to bring sympathy for people neither of us know, and nether of us are certain they've done what they are accused of. I simply have more faith in the judicial system than you. I really don't want to place these people, for the rest of their lives on the public dole for the rest of their lives. These people get more services than your grand ma, and don't pay a cent for their food, clothing, entertainment, medical, dental, death benefits. Your grandma has to take a back seat to these people when funding issues come to the table and that isn't right. Did your grand ma rob or kill anyone? no but as far as services goes, she has out of pocket expenses, while these people don't. You want a scenario, well I have facts that I can bring to bear. The fact is that these people get more chances than any of us do, anytime of the week, and to warehouse them all so a few people can be satisfied is lunacy.

I love it when people seem to think everybody else has a conscious, because they do. They visualize these people rotting in jail, lamenting every thing they've ever done wrong. Did you see any emotional response in Timothy McVeigh, when he was on trial or even when he was sentenced. No Nothing. Criminals are criminals because of their value system. They are not like others so don't grant them the sentiments that they don't have. I'm still waiting for the proof you guys have refereed to that all these people are innocent. That's just another talking point. Talking points are red herrings that people toss out, when they don't have a valid argument. They are nothing more than a possible assumption of an affirmed maybe, Which makes it nothing

Ideals seem always to come from those with the least amount of experience in the matter discussed. That's why they are called ideals and why so many of them are found in bathrooms, where they belong. Try telling that to a father that just lost his entire family so two degenerates can get their dicks wet. Are you more experienced? Has ideals something to do with experience? Ideals comes from an open mind, no matter the experience. As mentioned previous eye for an eye makes the world blind, and we will soon run out of people to execute. What good is it. No matter the cruelty he/she has comitted, a death penalty is not gonna bring the victims back. It is, and will always will be revenge. Revenge is born out of hatred, so I can see only more hatred as a result of death penalty. Ideals don't come from an open mind. Just try debating some of these idealist on their sacred cows and you'll see what I mean. These people run to the end of their idealistic little chain and you'll hear some of the most foul mouthed little children you will ever hear. Once they've run out of talking points to throw at you, they start calling you every name in the book, for daring to question their sanctimonious rear ends. Most ideals are instilled into people by those that use them for control. The idea that of open mindedness is a talking point to these people. They throw it out to make themselves feel good. The whole thing is a total fallacy in it's own right. Please don't run to the edge of Pluto with this, eye for and eye thing. People continually overuse it and run it into the ground. They don't even know whole idea behind that is to give back what was taken. If they would read up on such things, instead of throwing them out as talking points, they would find that out. They find that too inconvenient, so they use it as a talking point. It is only those that don't support justice that try to redefine it as revenge. They think their version of justice is the only one, therefore they redefine others interpretation. They try to redefine the wheel because they think such things have to be deeper than they are. So-called civilized society has ignored the fact that some of us are not civil and don't really give a flip what others think, do or own. If they see something they want, they'll take it. If they see a women or little girl they want, they will rape her and if they are afraid of getting caught, or someone steps in their way, they will kill them. Wringing your hands and saying society is wrong in taking a life, for a life taken, doesn't resolve the situation, or saying nothing will return a murdered loved one, only shows how callus and disconnected those who have lost nothing can be. They have all the room to treat such things as a sociology experiment.

It depends on the situation. Logical criminals are the people in office, or the people who make laws to be sure they don't get caught. Its a different scale yes, but crime can still be logical depending on how you deal with it. Criminals should be analyzed. One time offenders will not always commit a crime again. If someone robs a store once and gets caught, it does not mean they will go off robbing more stores. You are inserting words again. If you replace logical with diabolical, you will be closer to the mark., as far as corrupt officials are concerned. A thief is a thief, man. no mater how much you want to analogize them, it always comes back to two things. They lack morals and respect for others people and their property. If you want to spend the taxpayers dollar on turning them, this way and that way, trying to deduce what is right in front of your face, go ahead, but in the end, you will come to the same conclusions that everybody else will. There is always the chance that they will return to criminal activity.The path you've chosen was just more costly, but as many politicians have found out. It's not their personal money, so who gives a flip right. Let's experiment, shall we.

Ideals seem always to come from those with the least amount of experience in the matter discussed. That's why they are called ideals and why so many of them are found in bathrooms, where they belong. Try telling that to a father that just lost his entire family so two degenerates can get their dicks wet.

What about the innocent people who get executed because of it? I would rather save a criminal on the chance that he is innocent the execute a innocent man on the chance that he is a criminal. Which people are these? I'm sure if you asked them, they are all innocent.

Sometimes crime is logical. That is irrelevant though. No. We need to figure out if the person will do the same thing again and decide on that. That's not true. Some crimes will be a one time thing, not every criminal is a psychopath. If you create a truely rational system you will be able to prepare for irrational people. Being irrational to deal with irrational people makes no sense. That's not what we have been trying all along. Our criminal system is fueled by emotion and revenge, not wanting to fix the crimes committed on people. It is a emotional system, not a logical one. What do you consider victims rights? Victims wanting to get revenge based on emotion? Crime is never logical, and it is relivant, so please don't dismiss my argument like that. Crime is due to people taking the easy way out. It is as cut and dry as that. We don't need to find out if anybody will try the same illegal behavior again, at all, since we know they've stooped to doing it once, what will keep them from doing it again. Being rational to irrational people is what the U.N. has tried with Saddam and Iraq. Tell me, how has that worked out? Victims rights are what justice needs to be, about. They are the victims. What did they do to deserve what happened to them? What does it matter? Crime is logical in the sense of helping yourself. People get away with crimes all the time. A lot of people have broken the law at some point in their life. It doesn't not instantly mean they are a repeat offender. What are you suggesting? Throwing logic out the window and stooping down to their level? Look how that turned how with Saddam and Iraq when Cheney and Bush had that idea. Vitim didn't do anything to deserve it, you are correct. That does not mean the victim should inflict the same thing on the criminal. Dude, You have a logical mind. Therefore you think everything has a logical remedy. You are completely out of your element, when you discuss criminal behavior. I live with criminals. My whole family that my brother married into is nothing more than Thug, crackhead, trailer trash. Their is nothing logical about what they do and how they go about it. They are opportunists that take advantage of every opening they can find to exploit. They are about as logical as a chicken on acid! You are on a completely different level than they are and I'd really hate to clean you up after they proved me right on this. First place don't try a red herring like that on me, about Dick Chaney and IRAQ. that was nothing more than two opportunists exploiting a situation to get rid of an irritant. The situation was 9/11 and they tried to kill two birds with the same stone. All they did is spread themselves out and extend a the true conflict out far longer than it should. That had nothing to do with anything we are talking about. It wasn't logical or illogical. It was a power grab by a pipe dreamer. And please stop inserting revenge for justice. It seems you think criminals need to analyzed like lab rats. I think you are trying to thread a needle with a electron microscope. Sometimes the things you search for is right in front of your nose

Sometimes crime is logical. That is irrelevant though. No. We need to figure out if the person will do the same thing again and decide on that. That's not true. Some crimes will be a one time thing, not every criminal is a psychopath. If you create a truely rational system you will be able to prepare for irrational people. Being irrational to deal with irrational people makes no sense. That's not what we have been trying all along. Our criminal system is fueled by emotion and revenge, not wanting to fix the crimes committed on people. It is a emotional system, not a logical one. What do you consider victims rights? Victims wanting to get revenge based on emotion? Crime is never logical, and it is relivant, so please don't dismiss my argument like that. Crime is due to people taking the easy way out. It is as cut and dry as that. We don't need to find out if anybody will try the same illegal behavior again, at all, since we know they've stooped to doing it once, what will keep them from doing it again. Being rational to irrational people is what the U.N. has tried with Saddam and Iraq. Tell me, how has that worked out? Victims rights are what justice needs to be, about. They are the victims. What did they do to deserve what happened to them?

To clean out the trash that take up oxygen. Like the two people who raped and murdered this guys family. read this

I remember, awhile back I was talking to a postal worker and was told that they various departments have a set budget, which goes up incrementally from year to year. I was also told if any department doesn't spend their total allotment for the year, Next years budget, for that department gets cut, that amount. What do you guys think. Is this system force departments to waste money, in order for them to get their full allotment of our tax money? Is this abuse at the highest levels? Heck, I just heard about The Justice Dept. having muffins at a dinner that cost the taxpayer something like $16.00 a piece. The left and the right are fighting over grand ma getting a walker, while these guys are munching down $20. per mouthful. I think we are looking in the wrong direction, for the cuts we need.

Corporate welfare is an abomination. Companies and business need to be left alone, unless they are digging into the American pocket book. They don't need to be subsidized, because if they are, It's usually, something that they or the government did or didn't do that caused them to need these subsidies. Why should the public pay for the screw ups of others.