Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
My problem with the death penalty is that I have zero confidence in the courts to determine who is guilty and who is not.
They are however, very good at determing who has money and who does not!
So the second part of the thought process here is looking for a solution to each individual issue within the problem. I feel the same way about this as you do, but there's that nagging thought that I don't know how I would react if this were personal.I'm not in favour of the death penalty for any number of reasons, but this is primary among them. And all too often, there is a rush to conviction of a heinous crime on flimsy evidence, and then things come out on appeal, or someone who lied, develops a conscience.
So the second part of the thought process here is looking for a solution to each individual issue within the problem. I feel the same way about this as you do, but there's that nagging thought that I don't know how I would react if this were personal.
We might be able to identify individual cases for which there is enough clear evidence to fully eliminate the possibility of error. I don't know. That definitely does sound subjective, though (what constitutes "enough'?), and that makes it tougher.
Limbaugh didn't provide you with "empirical evidence", he exaggerated the left wing media bias, which studies found to be about 7% into a huge reality gap that meant that NOTHING the left says can be trusted. Right wingers bought into Limbaugh's lies and hate, further dividing the left from right.
At the same time, Limbaugh, FOX News, and other right wing media outlets promoted lies about Democrats, conspiracy theories, and outright bullshit that Rupert Murdoch made up, so that now people like you are believing garbage you would have laughed at as ridiculous 10 years ago.
Just look at the lies he told you about that young woman who simply wanted her birth control included in her health insurance, that she was paying $10,000 in insurance premiums to her Catholic University, to purchase on her behalf. He called her a slut, and every disgusting name he could come up with, simply because she wanted her rights.
thepostmillennial.com
cnsnews.com
So you think pushing gender bending propaganda as early as preschool is appropriate?
Or using puberty blocking drugs on preteens
and double mastectomies on girls as early as 12 or 13 yoa is a good thing?
That's exactly what commiecrats are pushing. Isn't it hard enough on a child that is coming of age without filling their heads with all that crap?
.
gender bending? you mean drag queens & trannies reading books in libraries? don't bring yer kid then. see? easy peazy. & there is no mass indoctrination to turn kiddies into little 'gay' mini mes.
not happening unless a child really wants & feels that is best for themselves. & which is reversable.
not happening - that is complete bullshit. find me an unbiased credible link that is happening anywhere. i'll wait kitty cat.
lol ... you're certifiable.
www.foxnews.com
nypost.com
nypost.com
abcnews.go.com
www.dailysignal.com
not happening unless a child really wants & feels that is best for themselves. & which is reversable.
I see no mitigating factors when sentencing someone who is known to indeed have committed the crime. A mass shooter for example.So you agree that those where there is no doubt should be put to death. I would not allow any appeals either. Put them down as dispassionatey as if it was a rabid rat.
I’m talking about when they’re wrong and execute an innocent, dope.The difference is the state has the authority to execute because they represent the public. It's about as stupid of a comparison as saying how could a judge lock up a kidnapper. They both kept people from leaving on their own.
They give the condemned their day in court and due process, including appeals. Not a hard concept to grasp.
.
When they are later found to be innocent, dope.
Completely untrue.That doesn't happen today with the advancements in detecting crime. Years ago somebody could be sentenced to death over an eye witness. Today there is just too many things needed to prove murder outside eye witnesses.
Good question. Healthcare is mine. I'm sure there is a way to bring market forces to bear with some help from the government to broaden coverage and keep a decent safety net. The way the government is being used now is not working. It never works well, so it is perplexing.Hoping for an interesting, illuminating conversation here.
The one major issue I struggle the most with is the death penalty. My impulse is to be against the death penalty, because (a) I don't see it as a deterrent, and (b) because I kinda like the idea of letting someone rot for killing someone else. HOWEVER, if someone I love were murdered, I may want that killer to be made dead ASAP. I've never been in that position, so I can't tell how I would react.
What's yours?
10 facts about the death penalty in the U.S.
Here’s a closer look at public opinion on the death penalty, as well as key facts about the nation’s use of capital punishment.www.pewresearch.org
I have no idea that that nonsense has to do with your idiot claim that fewer people were on welfare in the 60sI was a kid back in the 60's. People were very discriminatory back then. Hell, even my father was told he couldn't become a bricklayer because the union didn't want anybody of Polish descent. it wasn't until he became outraged at a hearing because he was a Korean war vet, and that's the only reason they let him in.
it was altogether a different time that younger people can't relate to. Oh, they can read about it, but it's not an environment that they seen with their own eyes.
That's the GOP folks. Those legislators LISTEN to freaks like this guyThere is no right to birth control.
Good one.Good question. Healthcare is mine. I'm sure there is a way to bring market forces to bear with some help from the government to broaden coverage and keep a decent safety net. The way the government is being used now is not working. It never works well, so it is perplexing.
Good one.
FYI, there already is a solid government/free market combination in effect that is popular with its participants: The Medicare / Medicare Advantage / Medicare Supplement system, that provides seniors with a solid foundation and FREE MARKET choices, competition and innovation. It could easily be tweaked to cover everyone. There are several moving parts that can be revised to keep costs down.
For example, here's an idea of mine: The Medicare portion can be smaller when people are younger and healthier, and they'd then have options with FREE MARKET Medicare Advantage plans or FREE MARKET Medicare Supplements. Those would cost less than they do now because, again, the person is younger and healthier. Then, as we age and become more expensive to cover, the government portion can increase to what it is now, and the participant can still get a supplemental policy.
Right now, our health care "system" (ha) includes seven (7) different service delivery/payment systems, NONE of which communicate seamlessly with the others : Individual, Group, Medicare, Medicaid, VA, Worker's Comp and indigent. That is fucking INSANE.
Everyone would have their own portable, personalized plan. Imagine the increased efficiencies of not having seven (7) different internal systems. Imagine the cost monkey it would take off the backs of American employers. It's just sitting there, ready to go (with some doable tweaks), but our "leaders" (ha) are no longer allowed to communicate, collaborate, or compromise in any way.
That's the GOP folks. Those legislators LISTEN to freaks like this guy
I have no idea that that nonsense has to do with your idiot claim that fewer people were on welfare in the 60s
www.nationalreview.com
