"anti abortion is so 18th century"

Yeah, the killing of children is so 21st century. Now THAT is progress. Let me guess.......you are happy about the shootings in Newtown aren't you. Perhaps, in your mind, it is unfortunate that Lanza did not kill more. Sort of a late abortion.
Disgusting.

every woman has her own right to decide, it's not you or some bible that have to decide for her.
Since the 18th century, women gain equality, sadly more in theory than in reality, so it's her business

{every woman has her own right to decide}

What about the unborn innocent baby?

it's not a baby before it's born but a foetus, and depending situations the child would be living in a hurting environment.

Men can leave and avoid responsibilities but women can't, so they are the one to decide.

{depending situations the child would be living in a hurting environment.}

That sounds like you are saying - it is a common Leftist argument - that it is better to kill the unborn baby than to take a chance that the baby could grow up in an impoverished environment.

...and so is the right-wing-corporate-FASCIST-party and it's "faithful".

"every woman has her own right to decide, it's not you or some bible that have to decide for her.
Since the 18th century, women gain equality, sadly more in theory than in reality, so it's her business"

Proof, yet again, that you fools don't read and that, if you do, don't understand what you read.

My comment had nothing to do with the right to decide as you put it. It is a comment on your statement that anti abortion is so 18th century. R E A D, for a change, to understand what you are talking about.

Now, assuming that you are going to respond to this, do you support Obamacare or do you support the right to choose regarding the requirements in this law? Do you support the right to choose to take advantage of the freedom to protect yourself by owning firearms or is that freedom subject to government control? Do you mourn and decry the killing of 26 children by Lanza and seek to control the tool he used yet applaud the killing of many thousands whose only offense is to be several years younger? These questions are not to be confused to be my position on abortion, they are not. If you want to know what my position is then ask but don't assume. I have stated it on this board many times.

I support universal health care, which is its right name.
I am not supporting gun but i would agree that some want or even need one as long its controlled, no freak, no criminals and only defensive weapons, handguns are enough but no AR15 type.
I mourn and decry every of those kids and that's why i am against letting any weapons making such massacre possible out in the market.
I am for allowing a woman to decide of her futur and her body, that's what freedom and personal rights are for.

"universal health care" is essentially socialized medicine in which the government makes sure that every citizen will have health care.

I am adamantly against it and will be until my dying breath, even if I have no money and can delay that final breath by GOVERNMENT medical assistance!

Never. I will never change on this. I have experienced this system and have thought it through.

Again - Never.

"I support universal health care,..."

Obamacare is a laundry list of the state controlling what people do with their bodies, and their cash. The right to have firearms is a stated civil right yet you wish to control it. Where do you draw the line? What other civil rights do you wish to control. You said you are for allowing a woman do decide her future and her body. Suppose that future involves firearms? You seem to want to give her unfettered freedom to kill children yet want to control her self defense options. You can't be for complete abortion freedom yet cite "the children" when wanting gun control. Too many contradictions. Freedom is like pregnancy, you either are or you are not.

remind me why you pay tax, just to pay some violent police force and an army?

You are so obsessed by gun control you are even using when you talk abortion!

{remind me why you pay tax, just to pay some violent police force and an army?}

Read the Constitution. See what the responsibilities of the government are: Security ranks high. Health care ain't there, either. It is not a right, and universal health care will destroy our system, of course. And it is not part of the "general welfare," either. It is not a NATURAL RIGHT that the government is supposed to SECURE. Universal healthcare, if considered a "right," is a Leftist government-created "right" that is not a right.

Oh, the police deserve our respect and thanks. I greet every policeman I see on the street, especially after I see what the Left-wingers in the country are doing. It is my way to tell them that I support and appreciate them (along with TENS of millions of Americans, of course).

{Obamacare is a laundry list of the state controlling what people do with their bodies, and their cash. The right to have firearms is a stated civil right yet you wish to control it. }

Yes, the Left is about control.

children are not being aborted....they are not children until they part the womb and begin to breathe....not recognizing that biological fact is so 18th century.

your equating the deaths of living, breathing human beings with the ending of a pregnancy is where you stopped thinking as a rational human being, and allowed yourself to be led by rhetoric designed to make people believe that a living, breathing human being exists before birth. Ironically, the opposite rhetoric is employed to denigrate living, breathing human beings who are poor.

I will repost what I wrote below.

The Left is promoting a mindset of death. One can bicker over the niceties of when life starts and so on, but the underlying emphasis is on choosing life or death. The Left is saying that not allowing that start of human life - to kill this beginning - is only a "choice."

That is immoral, heinous, and abhorrent.

and so are the right-wingers...

tell me, are you for death penalty or against?

For, of course.

So you are for frying on an electric chair a man,( which usually is black and wrongly accused) but won't let a woman deciding to abort!

this is incoherent and very hypocrite, if you are pro-Life you can't be pro death

{So you are for frying on an electric chair a man}

Hanging or shooting would be fine, too.

if you are Ok to kill how can you be pro life!

{if you are Ok to kill how can you be pro life!}

There are many reasons to execute premeditated, cold-blooded, ruthless, degenerate murderers: Revenge, the family of the victim getting a conclusion, deterrence, and saving the state money.

(Pluuueeeaase do not say it is more expensive; it is more expensive because of Left-winger appeals and dreck. Just zap the guy within a few months or weeks of the pronouncement, and be done with it. Save $$.)

Oh, and I often use the word "innocent" to describe the unborn child.

perfectly typical right-wing crimestop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime#Crimestop) hypocrisy, It's thoughtcrime against the right-wing-corporate-FASCIST-party to question the party, the ministry of luv (Faux-Noise) will surely send it's gestapo agents to crush any dissent!

"There are many reasons to execute premeditated, cold-blooded, ruthless, degenerate murderers:"

Okay, let's look at these then...

"Revenge"

Didn't think that revenge and justice were one and the same, but okay...

"the family of the victim getting a conclusion"

Pretty sure that families of the victims don't usually get a good conclusive feeling, otherwise known as closure, from the execution of a murderer.

"deterrence"

... for being a deterrence, the death penalty is a pretty shitty at deterring people from committing crimes that warrant the death penalty.

"saving the state money"

Wow, that is a complete bullshit soundbite if I ever heard one. California taxpayers paid $90,000 more per year on death row inmates than inmates who were in regular confinement. Death row inmates also tend to cost states a fair bit more money on repeals in the courts.

"Oh, and I often use the word 'innocent' to describe the unborn child."

It's funny because you are a hypocritical Liberal phobic L.B. Please, allow me to explain the hypocritical part, even though it should be redundant to explain that you are or how you are a hypocrite.

We've had discussions regarding how torture is unreliable, and what's funny about it is that I pointed out that numerous men who were later found innocent, because DNA evidence proved that they were not the guilty of the crimes they were accused of, were convicted of their crimes and put to death because they confessed under torture while in police custody. Pretty much all of these men were African Americans and... the important part here THEY WERE ALL INNOCENT. Yet despite the fact that they were innocent, you did not give two shits that they were actually innocent, because the court at the time of their convictions found them guilty, and that was good enough for you.

So to boil this down, using the word innocent to describe an unborn fetus/baby, depending on however you choose to label an organism that is completely parasitic from its conception until after many months of development, to give your argument an emotional push in an attempt to make it legitimate while completely ignoring or brushing off the lives of men who were proven innocent after being put to death is hypocritical.

You're welcome our resident Liberal phobic L.B.

{Pretty sure that families of the victims don't usually get a good conclusive feeling, otherwise known as closure, from the execution of a murderer.}

Absurd. Knowing that a vicious animal who killed one's loved one is still alive in prison, the families would be thinking and thinking about that entity. And there is always the possibility that it could get out someday. If the worthless POS is dead, they can no longer think about its suffering, their hoping for its death, and so on. It is over.

This is common sense. However, to understand this, one must be capable of, or willing to, understand human nature. The first step in that basic and easy process is the acceptance of human nature, not to believe in some "visionary" ideal of it, of course.

{for being a deterrence, the death penalty is a pretty shitty at deterring people from committing crimes that warrant the death penalty.}

It does have some deterrence for pre-meditated murder, the kind that warrants hanging, a firing squad, or an electric chair. A little is enough.

{that is a complete bullshit soundbite if I ever heard one. California taxpayers paid $90,000 more per year on death row inmates }

Why do you distort, deceive and misrepresent by truncating. I KNOW the numbers, of course; I STATED that I KNOW in our present system it costs a lot.

I wrote that we should execute them quickly. Stop the appeals, the catering, the coddling, the counselors, the good treatment. Throw them in a safe hole someplace, and zap them within a couple of weeks or months. If inmates for ANY crime cost the taxpayer much money, something is wrong.

{We've had discussions regarding how torture is unreliable}

First of all, your apologizing for terrorist enemies of the United States of America is noted,especially the fact that you would put your (incorrect) THEORY ahead of the lives of TENS of thousands of American citizens, that you would put the comfort of a degenerate animal of more importance than the lives of innocent Americans. Duly noted.

Next, it is "enhanced interrogation." Perhaps you should look up the meanings of torture, pal.

Next, only three "poor widdle twerrorists" were subjected to the "enhanced interrogation" that they DESERVED.

Finally, that ENHANCED INTERROGATION helped lead us to the vicious animals that had responsibility in killing the citizens of the greatest country in the history of the world!

"if you are Ok to kill how can you be pro life!"

You are trying to equate a baby in the womb with a person convicted of killing another person without any justification such as self defense etc. These are not equals. If you are so opposed to capital punishment for people who have done the type of crimes that make them subject to this penalty, how can you support the killing of someone who has not done this? No appeal, no nothing. Just kill the helpless and innocent and let the criminal survive.
This does not compute.

let the women choose what they want to do, that's all
It's easy to give advice and morale when you are not the one to bare the choice, the burden, the responsibilities, when it is not about your life.
Freedom is allowing people to choose for themselves

{You are trying to equate a baby in the womb with a person convicted of killing another person without any justification such as self defense etc. These are not equals.}

It is so patently obvious, it is unfortunate that you even have to point it out. Unfortunately, it appears that you do.....

{Freedom is allowing people to choose for themselves}

If one follows that logic, then one should be free to kill another.

Or, at a simpler level, a parent of a baby who has been born should be freee to make the NARCISSISTIC choice of deciding what to do with his or her own time, right? Maybe it is too much work to care for a newborn. Maybe it costs too much to get the newborn baby food. Maybe it is inconvenient - the parent wants to watch his or her favorite tv show - to change or bathe the innocent tyke. Hey, "choose for MYSELF."

ME, ME, MY, MY. An excuse for more Leftist narcissism.

"let the women choose what they want to do, that's all "

It seems that, much like Orwells farm, some are more equal than others. Abortion is the third rail of liberal philosophy. The right to end life in the womb is untouchable yet the Charlie Mansons of the world are ok. Funny, I don't believe the person who targeted that abortion doctor or Zimmerman received the same sympathy. You really have no argument to support your position. Don't feel bad it really isn't you and I'm not throwing rocks at you but let's face it, no one can make the argument that abortion is about freedom over our bodies.

Sad isn't it.

{The right to end life in the womb is untouchable yet the Charlie Mansons of the world are ok.}

Yes, Manson, an icon of the New Left. Do you remember the Left-winger Berndine Dohrn, the wife of the Liberal hero, William Ayers?

She gave the three-finger salute. This was in honor of Charlie. It seems that after they did their sanguinary deed, they stuck forks into the body of the deceased, then proceeded to have a meal around the corpse.

The 3-fingered salute symbolized the forks.

"Knowing that a vicious animal who killed one's loved one is still alive in prison, the families would be thinking and thinking about that entity. And there is always the possibility that it could get out someday. If the worthless POS is dead, they can no longer think about its suffering, their hoping for its death, and so on. It is over."

Okay, I'm going to ignore the fact that this is bullshit for long enough to pose a hypothetical question that is not really hypothetical... How do you think the families of murder victims in Chicago who thought that their family members murderer was put to death felt when they discovered that it was provable via genetic evidence that the person who was put to death was not actually the person who killed their family member?

"This is common sense. However, to understand this, one must be capable of, or willing to, understand human nature."

Actually, it is not common sense. The violent death of a family member never really heals, and the execution of those who were thought to be responsible tends to give an immediate relief, but does nothing to either remedy the situation or give the family that sense of closure because closure in such situations is, for all intensive purposes, an illusion. The psychological wounds from that kind of impact on a family never go away or even heal, families tend to either find a way to function around them or fall into disarray because of the impact that such an event has left on the family.

"It does have some deterrence for pre-meditated murder, the kind that warrants hanging, a firing squad, or an electric chair. A little is enough."

Riiiiiiight... it is about an effective a deterrence as anti-pirating ads are in the prevention of downloading music and movies...

"I wrote that we should execute them quickly. Stop the appeals, the catering, the coddling, the counselors, the good treatment. Throw them in a safe hole someplace, and zap them within a couple of weeks or months. If inmates for ANY crime cost the taxpayer much money, something is wrong."

Good to know you are all for due process. Just want to point out, you seem a little more than eager to willingly sacrifice innocent people who are found guilty of crimes that receive the death penalty... but that's not really news.

"First of all, your apologizing for terrorist enemies of the United States of America is noted,especially the fact that you would put your (incorrect) THEORY ahead of the lives of TENS of thousands of American citizens, that you would put the comfort of a degenerate animal of more importance than the lives of innocent Americans. Duly noted."

Speaking of duly noted things, it is pretty apparent that you have absolutely no problem with creating generations of people, outside of the United States, who are hostile to the United States... possibly to the point of further violence and violent attacks, so long as you get quick satisfaction pertaining to people who you view to be a threat even though the gross majority of people who have been detained and tortured were not hostile towards the United States prior to being abducted and tortured. Good to know that ya Liberal phobic L.B.

"Next, it is 'enhanced interrogation.' Perhaps you should look up the meanings of torture, pal."

torture |ˈtôrCHər|
noun
the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain.
• great physical or mental suffering or anxiety: the torture I've gone through because of loving you so.
• a cause of such suffering or anxiety: dances were absolute torture because I was so small.

That can include big things like electronic shocks to a victims genitals, or more mundane things such as keeping victims in stress positions for 8+ hours at a time, sleep deprivation, and treating the victim as though they were sub-human.

But you wanted to make a distinction BETWEEN "enhanced interrogation" and torture. Okay, let's look at the "success" that "enhanced interrogation" has had...

"In April 2009 a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist stated that the Bush administration applied pressure on interrogators to use the "enhanced interrogation" techniques on detainees to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime.[106] The purported link between al Qaida and Hussein's regime, which has been disproven,[107] was a key political justification for the Iraq War. On 13 May 2009, former NBC News investigative producer Robert Windrem reported, as confirmed by former Iraq Survey Group leader Charles Duelfer, that the Vice President's Office suggested that an interrogation team led by Duelfer waterboard an Iraqi prisoner suspected of knowing about a relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

Now, in case you are unable to read that correctly, or at all, I'll spell it out for you. "Enhanced interrogation," which is just a nicer way of saying torture, does not work.

"Next, only three "poor widdle twerrorists" were subjected to the "enhanced interrogation" that they DESERVED."

Hundreds of detainees have been subjected to sleep deprivation, extended hours in stress positions, cultural humiliation, extreme mental stress at the constant threat of electrocution while hooded with wires attached to their bodies. Of those hundreds, only a relative handful had any ties to terrorist activities prior to being subject to Bush's version of Rendition.

"Finally, that ENHANCED INTERROGATION helped lead us to the vicious animals that had responsibility in killing the citizens of the greatest country in the history of the world!"

No, it did not. It affirmed, AFTER YEARS OF "ENHANCED INTERROGATION," A.K.A. TORTURE, were Bin Laden was WHICH WAS SOMETHING WE DISCOVERED VIA CONVENTIONAL INTELLIGENCE GATHERING AND NOT TORTURE.

However, prior to that, "enhanced interrogation," a.k.a. torture...
1) Bogged us down in an illegal war in Iraq which has:
a) cost us the lives of thousands of soldiers... you know, people who sign up to protect our country, not go to war for oil...
b) cost the lives of many more Iraqi civilians who had nothing to do with the attack on our nation...
c) not done a single fucking thing either about terrorists OR our oil crisis, making the invasion of Iraq a colossal failure both in regards to the "War on Terror" or as a war for oil...
2) Boosted Al-Queda recruitment. Nothing sells the idea that the United States is a godless evil that must be destroyed like having the United States blindly support the abduction of Middle Eastern citizens, WHO WERE NOT TERRORISTS, so it can put them through "enhanced interrogation."
3) Done a pretty good job of showing the rest of the world that that United States does not give two shits about the Geneva Convention, and therefor if/when we do get in a war with another nation who has observed it in the past, it is very unlikely that said other nation will not abide by the rules set forth which dictate that you don't torture P.O.W.s.

By the way, for someone who thinks this is the best nation in the world, you sure seem to spend a lot of time in Japan. You know... just seems kinda odd.

Mistakes are made. No system is perfect. To claim to throw something out because it is not perfect is absurd.

No, you did it again: I never said that there will be perfect closure and an end to the suffering of the survivors after the murderer is rightfully executed. But it will help them to "move on" to a greater extent. They come first, not the murderer. If there is some chance it will help them to move on, feel vindicated, feel righted - then execute the murderer. No question about that. Perhaps they could have a say in the sentence: Decide whether or not to go for the death penalty.

I do not care about the comfort or rights of foreign terrorists who are planning to murder Americans. And the waterboarding DID help get information. That is irrefutable. If it helps get even a bit of information, take out the towels and the pails of water. Better them than a single innocent American. I hope this is clear.

"Mistakes are made. No system is perfect. To claim to throw something out because it is not perfect is absurd."

No system is perfect, but to brush off the executions of innocent people because you want to shrug due process is something a monster does. To top it off, dozens of those executed in states like Illinois were executed because they gave confessions under, what you like to refer to as "enhanced interrogation." That is not a matter of the system being mildly imperfect, that is a matter of the system being seriously corrupt.

"No, you did it again: I never said that there will be perfect closure and an end to the suffering of the survivors after the murderer is rightfully executed."

I'd say that you're correct, but you're taking my words out of context to fit them to your purpose. Yeah, you didn't use the word closure, I did, and it is synonymous with what you wrote:

"the family of the victim getting a conclusion."

Conclusion does not always or even normally occur with the execution of the person who was found guilty. Conclusion begins with years of therapy, regardless whether or not said murderer was put to death, and usually ends when the immediate members of the victims family die off, hopefully of old age. Family members almost always think of what-ifs that drag on for years and prevent the achievement of any real conclusion/closure.

"They come first, not the murderer."

Apparently the family also comes first, in some cases, before a person who did not commit the murder but was accused of it regardless. Just out of curiosity, where is this outrage of yours on the Trayvon/Zimmerman incident? All evidence points, and painfully... obviously... so, to the fact that, at best, Zimmerman willfully and recklessly created the situation that led to Trayvon's death. So does Trayvon's family get this kind of consideration, or was it right for Zimmerman to no be arrested until months later and tried so late after his death?

"Perhaps they could have a say in the sentence: Decide whether or not to go for the death penalty."

Hell, why not just put them on the jury? They surely wouldn't be emotionally invested in the case and would surely be able to be impartial...

"I do not care about the comfort or rights of foreign terrorists who are planning to murder Americans."

It is obvious that you also care little for the future security of our nation because you willingly support actions that are not only ineffective, but serve better than any terrorist or enemy P.R. campaign to actually breed hate for the Untied States on foreign soil which could very well lead to another event like 9/11 in the next 20+ years.

"And the waterboarding DID help get information."

Bull. Shit.

"That is irrefutable."

It is insanely refutable.

"If it helps get even a bit of information, take out the towels and the pails of water."

I would absolutely LOVE to know how long you'd provide "reliable" intel if someone strapped you down and simulated your drowning with a towel and some pails of water. Seriously, I bet you'd be spouting bullshit after the third time they asked you a question because you though it was what they wanted to hear and would make them stop.

"Better them than a single innocent American. I hope this is clear."

Duh... You are willing to trade the long term safety of both the United States and its citizens for the illusion of safety for both in the present. There's no confusion, you're pretty clear on that.

{To top it off, dozens of those executed in states like Illinois were executed because they gave confessions under, what you like to refer to as "enhanced interrogation." }

That is unfortunate. They should be more careful.

{That is not a matter of the system being mildly imperfect, that is a matter of the system being seriously corrupt.}

Corruption is bad. They should get rid of the corruption and execute people properly.

"That is unfortunate. They should be more careful."

Who? The police that tortured the suspects for a confession, the suspects who confessed under torture because that is what torture/enhanced interrogation does, or the family members who later found out that the murderer of their loved one was still free AND they condoned the death of an innocent man?

{Conclusion begins with years of therapy, regardless whether or not said murderer was put to death, and usually ends when the immediate members of the victims family die off, hopefully of old age. Family members almost always think of what-ifs that drag on for years and prevent the achievement of any real conclusion/closure.}

I cannot recite research, but I have both known and heard of people whose family member or close relative was murdered. Execution helps. Does not cure, but helps.

Think logically and rationally: If someone's son is murdered and the father knows that person is in jail and might even get out from some new Left-winger law or program of "rehabilitation." Can you imagine if that person were set free? Or just knowing that person is still alive? If the person is rightfully dead and buried, then that part IS over. The person cannot wish him more suffering, cannot be wondering what he is doing, cannot worry about his getting out someday.

{Just out of curiosity, where is this outrage of yours on the Trayvon/Zimmerman incident? All evidence points, and painfully... obviously... so, to the fact that, at best, Zimmerman willfully and recklessly created the situation that led to Trayvon's death. }

That is another matter, and I am not on the jury. The court will decide, even though you already have it seems.

{why not just put them on the jury? They surely wouldn't be emotionally invested in the case and would surely be able to be impartial...}

In deciding guilt, there should be impartial people. In deciding punishment, I would like to see the family have some voice, of course.

{you willingly support actions that are not only ineffective, but serve better than any terrorist or enemy P.R. campaign to actually breed hate for the Untied States}

No, that is the Left-winger agitprop excuse. The Left always blames America.

We should be feared and respected for our power. We should not seek to be loved because it will not happen if we are a strong and powerful nation which we should be. To seek to be loved is the dogma of losers.

Waterboarding worked. Sorry that you do not like this truth. It is irrefutable, of course.

{I would absolutely LOVE to know how long you'd provide "reliable" intel if someone strapped you down and simulated your drowning with a towel and some pails of water.}

Cross-referencing. It was clear that the waterboarding helped, and I do not care a whit about the terrorists.

One idea was to have cameras taping interrogations. (Not with terrorists, but with American citizens.)

"I cannot recite research, but I have both known and heard of people whose family member or close relative was murdered."

How very professional of you as someone with a degree in psychology... wait, no... the opposite of that.

Guess what turbo, a lot of people who are not you have also known and heard of people whose family member and/or close relative was murdered and the death of the accused... didn't do a damn thing.

"Execution helps. Does not cure, but helps."

Pretty sure people who are hooked on hard core pain meds, that usually happen to be narcotics, say similar things.

"Think logically and rationally: If someone's son is murdered and the father knows that person is in jail and might even get out from some new Left-winger law or program of 'rehabilitation.'"

Tell you what, when Chucky Manson gets out of prison on parole I'll concede that point if... and I mean if... you can give me a logical and rational answer about how a family that thought the murderer of their family member was executed would react/feel to discover that, not only, the murderer of their family member was still at large, but an innocent person was put to death so that they could attain a "conclusion."

"That is another matter, and I am not on the jury."

Its a hypothetical. You don't need to be on the jury to give an answer.

"The court will decide, even though you already have it seems."

The courts got cut out of the loop when the police let him go due to a law that allows people to avoid being processed when they are involved in a death and claim that their actions resulted in self defense. Stalking a kid for blocks in a car then confronting him AFTER being told not to by a 911 operator is the polar opposite of self defense. That is aggressively looking for conflict.

"In deciding guilt, there should be impartial people. In deciding punishment, I would like to see the family have some voice, of course."

Sure, lets try that. And a few decades down the road, we can look back at a few families who got to have their say in the final punishment of the few people who we will then know were wrongfully executed and we'll ask them whether or not they think it was a good idea to include them in on sentencing.

"Waterboarding worked. Sorry that you do not like this truth. It is irrefutable, of course."

It is totally refutable, it largely worked at getting false information which has cost thousands upon thousands of lives, and the one time it provided decent intel it came in second place to intel gathered by traditional means.

"Cross-referencing."

Because I'm sure you don't really know the meaning of this...

cross reference |ˈkrɔs ˈˌrɛf(ə)rəns|
noun
a reference to another text or part of a text, typically given in order to elaborate on a point.
verb [ with obj. ] (usu. be cross-referenced)
provide with cross references to another text or part of a text: entries are fully cross-referenced.

In short, cross-referencing is not the "YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID" that you seem to think it is. Cross-referencing is actually a benefit as opposed to a hinderance.

"It was clear that the waterboarding helped,"

Yes, if endangering future generations of United States civilians somehow fits into the category of helped, you did a spectacular job.

"and I do not care a whit about the terrorists."

And given how you seem to think that water boarding "helped," you don't seem to give a whit about actual threats to this nation, present or future, so long as you can wrap yourself up in your own blanket of fantasy and feel safe in the here and now at the cost of our present and future security.

"One idea was to have cameras taping interrogations. (Not with terrorists, but with American citizens.)"

Well no shit they wouldn't do it with terrorists. If they had cameras taping the interrogations with terrorists and those ever made it to the light of day, it would be reasonably undeniable (though I'm sure you'd give it the whole 9 yards) to deny that "enhanced interrogation" is torture, it is ineffective, and the people you "know" in Gitmo are untrained thugs and liars.

{How very professional of you as someone with a degree in psychology... wait, no... the opposite of that.}

Invalid

{Guess what turbo, a lot of people who are not you have also known and heard of people whose family member and/or close relative was murdered and the death of the accused... didn't do a damn thing.}

They should choose not to have an execution. And it certainly did not make it worse for them.

Again, the murderer is the last of concern. It is the survivors only.

{ if... you can give me a logical and rational answer about how a family that thought the murderer of their family member was executed would react/feel to discover that, not only, the murderer of their family member was still at large, but an innocent person was put to death so that they could attain a "conclusion."}

Terrible for two obvious - I mean really fundamentally obvious to any slightly reasoning person - reasons:

1. An innocent person died.

2. The real murderer is still at large.

No more of these kinds of questions, please. Thanks.

{Its a hypothetical. You don't need to be on the jury to give an answer.}

I answered hypothetically. The family of the victim should not be on a jury.

{he courts got cut out of the loop when the police let him go due to a law that allows people to avoid being processed when they are involved in a death and claim that their actions resulted in self defense. Stalking a kid for blocks in a car then confronting him AFTER being told not to by a 911 operator is the polar opposite of self defense. That is aggressively looking for conflict.}

The court will decide. You are wrong. You cannot convict on your own. Remember the Rodney King case? The jury saw evidence that the PEOPLE WHO WATCH TV ALL DAY did not.

Waterboarding worked. I did not think I would have to explain cross-referencing to you. The CIA is not simply waterboarding and accepting, of course. Is that what you actually believe? That our CIA just takes their word for it under duress and does not know that the animal might be lying? Do you really think that? If so, there is no point in discussing this.

{And given how you seem to think that water boarding "helped," you don't seem to give a whit about actual threats to this nation, present or future}

I care more about the nation that the Left-wingers who would put the rights of animal terrorists over the lives of American citizens, pal.

"Invalid"

Actually very valid. I was under the impression that having a Ph.D required certain standards of evidence when making such strong claims... I was probably under that impression because most of the people who I know with anything above a Bachelors tend to keep said standards which they attained in completing their Masters or Doctorate.

"They should choose not to have an execution. And it certainly did not make it worse for them."

Wow, here you are full of all kinds of deep physiological advise. Wait, no, I was wrong. That there is just a simple brush off and/or avoidance of a point against your own attempted argument.

"Terrible for two obvious - I mean really fundamentally obvious to any slightly reasoning person - reasons:

1. An innocent person died.

2. The real murderer is still at large.

No more of these kinds of questions, please. Thanks."

So then the answer to my question is no, you cannot give me a logical and/or rational answer about how a family that thought the murderer of their family member was executed would react/feel to discover that, not only, the murderer of their family member was still at large, but an innocent person was put to death so that they could attain a "conclusion."

Before you respond about how I'm ignoring your, I'm sure what you think is a well thought out response, keep in mind it doesn't answer or respond to the problem I posed, it just truncated the problems that I addressed and did not even hint at how a family in that situation would react/feel.

So yeah... Good we had this talk...

"I answered hypothetically. The family of the victim should not be on a jury."

Sorry about that one. It's been a long day and I got a bit turned around on that point. I yield that you answered the hypothetical question that I asked.

"The court will decide."

Okay, let's ignore the whole, "The court will decide," and go strait to the heart of the matter in this wee portion of the argument which has gone every which way... do you think that Zimmerman was morally correct in his actions which resulted in the death of Trayvon?

Invalid. I am not about to do research and document every response to your whining that only takes common sense and simple observations.

{So then the answer to my question is no, you cannot give me a logical and/or rational answer about how a family that thought the murderer of their family member was executed would react/feel to discover that, not only, the murderer of their family member was still at large, but an innocent person was put to death so that they could attain a "conclusion."}

I did give you an answer. Feel bad for the innocent executed person and want the guilty one caught. I answered.

{do you think that Zimmerman was morally correct in his actions which resulted in the death of Trayvon?}

I do not know. And I will not play your games.

"Invalid. I am not about to do research and document every response to your whining that only takes common sense and simple observations."

Well considering how I can counter your opinion on this particular subject with, what is also common sense AND simple observations... I suppose that it really is not invalid. Imagine that...

"I did give you an answer. Feel bad for the innocent executed person and want the guilty one caught. I answered."

You did... hmmm... let me check. Well, you wrote: "Terrible for two obvious - I mean really fundamentally obvious to any slightly reasoning person - reasons:

1. An innocent person died.

2. The real murderer is still at large.

No more of these kinds of questions, please. Thanks."

as your response. I'm lookin' at it... and I don't see jack shit about feeling bad or anything. Golly gee, I guess that makes you a liar or an idiot, not that either would be a revelation...

"I do not know. And I will not play your games."

You've been willingly playing these "games," stopping when the questions get tough makes it look like you're beaten.

word games

No, Conservatives from all the states should be setting up laws to help protect the lives of the innocent unborn.

Excellent post!

really cute shoes ;-)

Absolute TRUTH!

"Right wing hypocrite losers. All about the "small government" except for a government SO big and SO invasive it can control the uterus of every woman in the country."

Wrong. One of the primary purposes of government is to administer justice. As conservatives, we believe that justice should apply to the unborn.

"As conservatives, we believe that justice should apply to the unborn."

Now if only that belief was applied to children in poverty or people, largely minorities, who are imprisoned for years for minor drug possession charges...

{ All about the "small government" except for a government SO big and SO invasive it can control the uterus of every woman in the country.}

Invalid.

If the Left-wingers simply did not start going to the courts to overturn state laws and what the people in the respective states, this would not be happening. Conservatives and others who want to protect the lives of the innocent unborn babies have been pushed into a corner and are reacting to the Leftist agenda.

So, in the Liberal mind, just accepting the killing of unborn babies would signify that we do not want big government? It is the Liberals who are using the power of the central authority to force their agenda on the rest of us, and permitting the killing of any unborn baby.

{One of the primary purposes of government is to administer justice. As conservatives, we believe that justice should apply to the unborn.}

Excellent!

non sequitor

Absolutely true! The self-proclaimed "compassionate CONservatives" are nothing but hypocrite corporate-FASCISTS in service to their uncle-tom 1%er masters, their very use of the word justice is a sick farce. They only care about CONTROL. The 1%er, and corporates CONTROL of all, the suppression of the "under-class" (all who aren't rich white teavangelicals).

"non sequitor"

In regards to the topic of the original post, yes it is; however, in regards to your boy's post... which is what my comment was responding to, it was not.

In what way are you being "controlled" by the corporations? YOU stated this, so please be clear and specific. Can you answer this rationally and in a mature fashion? You are calling people fascists, so back it up.

Why not answer the questions? You made charges, so why not explain and defend them?

"Now if only that belief was applied to children in poverty or people, largely minorities, who are imprisoned for years for minor drug possession charges.."

Justice is the result of the trial. It has been my experience that justice depends on whose ox is being gored. Don't confuse justice with fairness. They are not the same.

{Don't confuse justice with fairness. They are not the same.}

For liberals they are the same, except the Left-wingers add the word "social" to justice. And "fairness" for Left-wingers only applies to the groups that these Liberals have decided are in need of MORE fairness. You know, "we are all equal but some groups are MORE equal."

Welcome to Liberal-Land.

"Don't confuse justice with fairness. They are not the same."

Funny you should say that...

justice |ˈjəstis|
noun
1 just behavior or treatment: a concern for justice, peace, and genuine respect for people.
• the quality of being fair and reasonable: the justice of his case.
• the administration of the law or authority in maintaining this: a tragic miscarriage of justice.
• ( Justice )the personification of justice, usually a blindfolded woman holding scales and a sword.
2 a judge or magistrate, in particular a judge of the supreme court of a country or state.

Be a dear, please inform me what the first bulleted description of this dictionary definition says. Go ahead, don't be shy.

Justice at the Supreme Court level is interpreting whether something adheres to our Constitution. As Robert Bork so wisely recommended: If we are unsure about that, the court should defer to those who make the laws - the legislature. In other words, they should not make any decision or simply uphold the legislation's decisions.

I certainly hope that they uphold the results of the voting in California and what Clinton signed when he was president.

Quiet Jr... the adults are talking and the topic has shifted to a more broad subject.

Now go play in the corner with your Ronald Reagan doll, but don't touch him in his naughty area's anymore or we'll have to take it away.

Ok, do not respond to the concept of justice at the Supreme Court level. It does not change the truth, of course.

Okay, fine. I'll play ball you dogmatic Reagan worshiper. I want to be clear, you're referring to Justice, at the Supreme Court level, as a decision made by the supreme court which decides whether or not something adheres to the constitution.

So, by that definition, something that the Supreme Court decides to be just is in fact just... so then how the fuck do you argue that Roe V. Wade was wrong when the Supreme Court decided to uphold it?

Technically the Supreme Court's decision on Roe v. Wade was a just interpretation/decision on what a woman can do with her body and what choices she can make.

Roe v Wade was wrong because the Court CREATED a right. A "right" to privacy.

If they followed the Constitution, it would have been left to the individual states.

"Now if only that belief was applied to children in poverty or people, largely minorities, who are imprisoned for years for minor drug possession charges..."

This is why the liberal dogma is so corrupt/self-contradictory. Here's an idea...DON'T DO DRUGS!! If you don't want to be imprisoned for years, then DON'T DO DRUGS in the first place. Is this really so hard?? One could also argue, if you don't want an abortion, then DON'T HAVE SEX!! I can't believe Liberals have such hard time connecting the dots together. No wonder Obamacare is such a huge bureaucratic catastrophe. lol

You summed up the absolute truth of it! The "person" in question (though some have conjectured it's just a Faux Noise trolling-software, which seems more likely then it's a actual human being) makes many claims, and we all know they're all LIES, each and every one. In fact if the "person" ever wrote a true thing it would be a real miracle as opposed to the religious ones "he" claims "he" doesn't "believe" in (though he "believes" all the equally ridiculous $hit Faux Noise "preaches")

"Wow, someone who seems to have a pretty religious view on the subject, despite his or her claims about being an atheist, sure seems to have a lot to say, a lot of which seems pretty in line with religious fanaticism, regarding this subject"

Don't delude yourself with pointless attempts to label individuals in an attempt to discredit them. Being pro-life doesn't require religious affiliation. Maybe some people are just fed up with the sheer number of abortions occurring every effing year.