In another post we were talking about the hot button issues. I was saying they could be solved if people wanted them solved.
I wanted to comment first on the thing about compromise itself. Then someone asked about if I would compromise my religion. I dont think that is a legitimate argument against compromise. You cant "make" someone believe something, even though i guess you could make certain religions illegal as they do in muslim countries.
But I have my beliefs. I realize some dont agree with me. The thing is, I just dont have a burning desire to show them where they are wrong. I could be wrong on some things. We dont need to agree on ideology - or a set of beliefs. That is not the real issue. The real issue is actually solving problems and doing things that matter, instead of just continually arguing the same arguments over and over.
Here is an example. I really do believe pornography is wrong, on many levels. However, I think it would be a big mistake to make it illegal because even the supreme court can't define it. So, while i dont change my belief, i have to "allow" it..
Here are my answers to the three hot button issues that were raised.
These are just not black and white issues as some try to make them be.
Democrats are for bigger government, and Republicans are for smaller government.
To some extent this is a bogus argument. we have a huge country, more than 300 million people. so everything is bigger. Wichita has to have a bigger govt. than Ark City just by the nature of each city.
The real issue is what do you want "government" to do.
Those who are against "big" govt and govt. interference are not intellectually honest. They want govt. to tell people what drugs they can use, how fast they can drive their car, which side of the road to drive on. they want abortion to be illegal, they want govt to not allow other people to take your stuff from you...(stealing) . and the list goes on ....
The answer here is to stop the rhetoric and work on issues. WHAT do we want govt to do? The constitution says by the people and FOR the people. So ... maybe we have to have 100 questions on the election ballot.
Democrats are pro-abortion, and Republicans are anti-abortion.
This is an issue that is not as black and white as either side wants to make it. It is not about choice. You make the choice when you do what you do to make a baby....
The real question is when does life begin?
people used to think that if you had sex for any other reason than making a baby, you were doing wrong... even with your spouse.
With all the advances of modern medicine surely we could define when life begins ..
so we have to "agree" on that question. you dont change your ideology and agree with it necessarily, but you get something and you give something ...
The bible really does not say when life begins. the verse often quoted - God knew you in your mothers womb - is a poem full of allegory .. it should not be used to set doctrine - that is just basic sound biblical interpretation..
Democrats are anti-gun, and Republicans are pro-gun rights.
Again, here both sides need to get over themselves a little bit.
Dems need to concede that most americans want their guns and that owning guns is a basic right.. even the supreme court has said this.
Pubs need to be honest about regulation, and understand that you have to have some kind of law .. even pubs dont want a 5 year old carrying a gun to kindergarten... or a blind person carrying a gun.
So, Dems admit to the basic right to own a gun, and Pubs admit that there needs to be some regulation...
Ok, there you have it, ...
let the arguing, er discussing begin.
"So, Dems admit to the basic right to own a gun, and Pubs admit that there needs to be some regulation..."
ReplyDeleteGun owners already admit that there needs to be some regulation. In fact there is a lot of regulation on the books right now, and most gun owners abide by those laws. No one has EVER claimed that a five year old has a right to carry a gun, and no one gripes about not being able to own machine guns or hand grenades. The only arguments come from liberals who want to ban guns all together. And you will never get the people like the Brady bunch and their followers to ever concede the notion that all guns are bad, and if they didn't exist the world would be all rainbows and butterflies. You know what? I hate smoking. Smoking is deadly, and hurts not only the people doing the smoking, but those around them as well. So you know what? I don't smoke. If you hate guns, don't buy one! But leave the rest of us alone.
"Democrats are pro-abortion, and Republicans are anti-abortion" This is cast in stone in each of these party's basic platforms. Though each member may not lock-step agree, that is their guiding principle. lookit, Democrats would rather sink the ship than defund P.Parthd. It's their favorite son. A Political party that worships at the bloody altar of abortion. compromise you say...have you ever heard Code Pink? N.O.W.? They are vitriolic, mean and compromise is NOT on their agenda. The abortionists? well they have one thing in mind and it ain't helping women. It's making more money. You make a valid point, the Republicans should have been more ruthless in promoting the anti-abortion policies when in power. (I think people would've respected them for it) Too many wafflers in the ranks. Dems in Pubs clothing I call them. i.e., Sen. Murchowski (R.,AK) And others, too. Republican in name only.
ReplyDeleteGuns. Guns are simply a tool. I personally don't own or need a semi-auto weapon. Your illustration of a 5 year old is hyperbole I know. But at least try a better one than that.
The nation of India is a good case study for what happens when you disarm a people. (Disarmed by British rulers after a famous uprising)
Even Gandhi, a famous proponent of non-violence, wrote in his autobiography: “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look back upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”
I'm not playing this round. I'll just let the 3 pubs play with themselves.
ReplyDeleteWhy play when you have no argument?
ReplyDeleteJJ,
ReplyDeleteLets face it that society has turned over alot of these issues over to the Government to solve or at least regulate/control!
Some of that maybe the result of apathy while the other part is the result of legalities or the threat of legal actions!
People like the ACLU are always looking for a good fight!
But, what happened to Society guiding individuals through constructive methods such as the Traditional Family Unit (with a father and mother),Clergy, Mentors at various levels and ages - like Teachers, Coaches, Employers, even Public Servants like the Police and Fireman? (You know I really feel for todays Teachers and Policemen - at least the ones who really care!)
Abortion isn't a remedy or a true solution!
To promote or provide it as such (maybe even pay for it) doesn't cure the problem or individual! (Look how many face depression or guilt maybe even years afterward!)
Guns - there is no question that the Gun Industry like the Car or any other business wants to make and sell MORE! (Even the foreign
companies want a piece of the action!)
So supply and demand dictate that market!
The Government's only solution would to be make them all illegal! So we continue to let Society guide it's course! (I actually agree with the conceal and carry - It provides a balance of Power and acts as a deterent. As well as the right of an Indivdual to protect his Family and Property!) I recently gave my Sister one of my fathers guns. I told her two rules - 1. Don't let someone else hurt or kill you with your own gun. 2. Don't take it if you feel you can't use it to defend yourself! (If you can't pull the trigger!)
You made a good point about the need for a bigger Government for a bigger population -
but, the Government shouldn't be involved in areas that should be Personal Responsibilities!
It's because Society doesn't make/hold people
accountable that Government is expected to fill that void!
I recently over heard some people talking about a program where individuals have choosen to intervene on behalf of others who are in trouble with the law! One of these is in cooperation with the local Drug Court. (The Sheriff and Judge) Indivduals in trouble are released under strict rules or a structured probation! They are helped to find work and are tightly curfewed! Any deviations can put them back in Jail!
From what I've heard they have seen some success - although not in every case nor does every individual cooperate!
I think the Governments/Politicians answer would be to build more Prisons!
it is interesting that conservatives keep saying the liberals want ALL guns outlawed.
ReplyDeleteive never actually heard or read where one actually said that ...
anyone have a verifiable quote?
jj, if you search for anti-gun quotes, you will find plenty of liberal quotes. As for a quote that says ALL liberals, you should no that an all inclusive suggestion on any subject is pretty easily disproven.
ReplyDeleteThe majority of people who call themselves liberals do not believe that people have a right to bear arms, and want guns outlawed.
ReplyDeleteOf course it doesn't apply to ALL liberals, just as not ALL conservatives are against abortion, or against big government, etc.
But there are attempts all the time to outlaw guns. They are simply not successful because Americans know the reason we were given the second amendment, and government knows it will have a problem taking our guns. Just look at the UK and Australia to see what happens when you take guns away from citizens. Just look at what happened during Katrina when Police rose up like the gestapo and illegally confiscated and destroyed guns from law abiding citizens.
I did a quick search on gun control and found these.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/
JJ said: "it is interesting that conservatives keep saying the liberals want ALL guns outlawed.
ive never actually heard or read where one actually said that ...
anyone have a verifiable quote?"
"The FresserForest Hills, NYMarch 15th, 20115:55 pm In Japan, it is very dificult to obtain a gun. They have some of the toughest gun control laws in developed nations. And guess what? They have fewer gun-related deaths in one year than we do in one week. I'm so tired of the gun lobby in this country and their idiotic slogans like "guns don't kill people, people kill people," and "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." I would vote to repeal the Second Amendment."
Just read a little on NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and you will see that he would love to disarm not only New York, but the entire country.
Take a look at this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07119/781629-374.stm#ixzz1JhOlQkkC
an exerpt:
"The disarmament process would begin after the initial three-month amnesty. Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling and empty building. Thoroughness would be at the level of the sort of search that is carried out in Crime Scene Investigations. All firearms would be seized. The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm."
This is not some "crazy right wing conservative gun nut" speculating on what will happen, this is a liberal gun banner stating how he believes it COULD and SHOULD happen. And this is just a small excerpt from his post entitled "Disarm America? Here's how" by Dan Simpson (D'Oh!), a former U.S. AmbASSador.
You completely misrepresented the piece. It is a LETTER TO THE EDITOR, .. it is in no way a news story.
ReplyDeleteThe writer never says "Should" ... the writer is a gun owner and has carried a concealed weapon at times, which the article says.
The writer has no problem with guns,and actually says that.
Even in his "Could" scenario, he makes exceptions for hunting and antique weapons.
Here is an excerpt that more reflects the tone of the piece.
Th"How could America disarm even if it wanted to? There are so many guns out there." Today I want to address the question of "how" -- if we decided to.
It is most definitely NOT a letter to the editor. The man is a former ambassador AND the associate editor of the post gazette which ran the story.
ReplyDeleteI sometimes worry about you JJ. It is you who misrepresent the piece. The man clearly shows that he would like for his idea to happen.
He makes hunting available in his perfect gun free world by mandating that hunters turn over all their hunting guns to a central facility, only being able to check them out during hunting season. All others would be banned. And he recommends a 3 month grace period where every gun owner would have to turn in their guns or face jail time, and after the three months the police would start randomly kicking in doors and searching homes to look for any guns that were not turned in. Sounds like clear violations of the 2nd and 4th amendments to the constitution.
Dan Simpson, is a retired diplomat, and is a member of the editorial boards of The Blade and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette". He sits on the editorial board of two newspapers hardly a letter to the editor. His article has caused ripples all over the net. google his name and "disarm Americ", and see the many responses and forums which tackle the issue.
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3711.nl.html
ReplyDeleteI looked it up. Here are some responses to the paper. Letter to the editor? Come on Jordan.
"I sometimes worry about you JJ..."
ReplyDelete...LOL.. I think anybody who reads jj's writing knowhs he has a strong lean to the left. (though he doesn't think so)
oh well, at least we can still have differing opines... ACLU hasn't changed that have they?
jk
Dan Simpson, a retired U.S. ambassador, is a Post-Gazette associate editor (dsimpson@post-gazette.com).
ReplyDeletejj...I wonder about you sometimes too. It says plain as day who wrote this. I disagree with you...this is NOT a "LETTER TO THE EDITOR.."
I suppose using your logic, at every paper you worked whatever you wrote and signed it: "The Editor" carried ZERO weight and was "in no way a news story".
Guess we have a differing opinion of what's "news". Good grief, jj...the guy is an associate editor of the paper. How could you read this and say it's a "LETTER TO THE EDITOR"?
Personally, his opinion of "how" is quite scary.
It seems odd that a person who used to be an editor of a paper could think that was a letter to the editor.
ReplyDeleteOk
ReplyDeleteso maybe i was wrong about who the guy was.
I still think you guys are over-reacting to the piece.
that was my point.
it is interesting that conservatives keep saying the liberals want ALL guns outlawed.
ReplyDeleteJJ,
When you want to (or must) represent all the Citizens as in the case of the Federal Government!
They always look for answers that are basically short cuts - like BANNING ALL GUNS,
BUILDING More jails and prisons, PROVIDING (Paying) ABORTION ON DEMAND, .........!
You can't solve these problems at the Federal Level!(They have no business trying!)
Okay, so we've got gun control out of the way, showing that there is no compromise that works, and proven to JJ that YES, there are people out there who want to ban all guns.
ReplyDeleteNow on to abortion.
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hdaGnzkUqG
This video speaks for itself. There are people who will never give up on the pro abortion angle because then they would not have access to quick abortions, and would have to think BEFORE they jumped in bed with that night's conquest. They might even have to keep their legs closed a few days each month to avoid getting pregnant. OR, they might actually have to take responsibility for the life they created and raise a child. What kind of a nightmare world would that be? These yuppies just don't have time for that! I love how the one guy in the video (and others) says that the people against abortion would have to find a way to care for all those children who were born instead of killed. At no time does the concept of the people who had the babies stepping up and taking care of them enter his feeble little brain.
Some of you libs get offended at the term pro-abortion, but watch this video and tell me that these people aren't thrilled with it. Some even bragging about having abortions as if they are proud of it.
You can find isolated examples of anything. Sure there are people who want to ban all guns.
ReplyDeleteWhether it is likely is the question.
I would bet that there are people who think we should surrender to the Afghani's right this minute and put bin laden in the white house...
You seem unwilling to compromise on guns.
you can have guns. there are some restrictions, but you dont like that.
you are just proving my point,... that neither side is wiling to work toward a solution.
where is the real effort to ban guns?
is there a credible effort being made?
is it a real threat?
prove that americans are really in danger of losing the right to have guns ...
just providing one person here and there who wants that, is not proof of anything
and the guy in the article NEVER said he would like to have guns banned.
They always look for answers that are basically short cuts - like BANNING ALL GUNS,
ReplyDelete///44
So show me one bill that has been introduced ... not ALL of them, just one ...
that would ban all guns.
im just saying you guys are exaggerating the gun thing.
sure there are people who hate guns, but ... where is this great effort to do anything?
awhile back i had a call from the NRA seeing a donation to help protect the right to own guns. the lady on the phone said there was a direct attack going on right now and they needed my money to preserve guns.
so i asked exactly what this threat was, and where i could find it on the internet. .. not on the NRA site, but the source of the threat ..
she had no answer, but wanted my money anyway ...
She couldnt even tell me in general what the threat was...
So show me one bill that has been introduced ... not ALL of them, just one ...
ReplyDeletethat would ban all guns.
I won't show you bills - just countries around the World. Where the population was disarmed and the only people with GUNS are the Militaries controlled by the Ruling Authorities of those Countries and the Criminals! (I think in some cases the Authorities and Criminals are the same people!)
History has shown us this over and over - Germany, Russia, Cuba, India ........!
The point is that the people with the guns end up in control where there is no balance of "Power" or "Force". The really ruthless ones like in Lybia today just remove their opposition by any means they see fit! (Usually it results in the killing off of the opposition and any of their sympathizers!)
So in the end "Compromise" or be destroyed!
I kind of prefer a Balance of "POWER/Force" without any COMPROMISE!
Btw: The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing - They had just won independence from the British Empire - who didn't see any need to Compromise with people who they considered their Subjects which they controlled and even "Owned"!
JJ said: "You can find isolated examples of anything. Sure there are people who want to ban all guns."
ReplyDeletedays earlier JJ said: "it is interesting that conservatives keep saying the liberals want ALL guns outlawed. ive never actually heard or read where one actually said that ...anyone have a verifiable quote?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PR_rzF8ofw
JJ, what if the Bible clearly did say when life began? What then? Do you take everything the Bible says as fact,without argument even in the face of contradictory scientific proof? What do we do with our reason and intellect? I think part of the problem we get ourselves into, is that we believe the Bible has something to say about every facet of our lives, and have used it to polarize ourselves.
ReplyDelete@5:19...LOL.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, jj..in reading your blog for some time now, I'm convinced you like to stir up hornet's nests. surely, as a Christian man you can't really believe the stuff you put on here. At least we've proven in this thread you should read our stuff a bit before jumping out shouting..."LETTER TO THE EDITOR". T.Y., for being big enough to admit (well..sorta admit..halfway)
Let's just think a bit about taxes. If I was going to tax a group of people to death I would not encourage them to have abortions. I would encourage them to have kabunches of babies. (Communists realized this) Think...If the 50 million babies we've collectively aborted were alive, there would be 50 million potential people for them to tax. The abortionists are crazy. That vid @ 11:04 says it all.
Ohhh boy, I can hear 'em now. "Who's gonna care for the babies?" Who's gonna? Who's gonna? So, the only answer they have is well...abortion.
Yeah, God forbid they step up and take responsibility. They have such important things to accomplish. Like protesting.
ReplyDeleteKabunches. I like it.
There is another side to your tax argument. The majority of abortions come from inner city minorities, so in a sense, government would be saving money by having them get abortions instead of having children in the welfare system. Now, that doesn't make it right, I'm just thinking at it from a different angle.
The majority of abortions come from inner city minorities, so in a sense, government would be saving money by having them get abortions instead of having children in the welfare system.
ReplyDeleteMaybe that is a short cut to offset/circumvent the policy of paying them to have and raise children as an occupation. (Regardless of the number of fathers, the age they get pregnant, or if they are victims of rape or incest due to their environment!)
If only those who sell their "souls" to Government Programs like welfare could see that they are actually trapped in a Sub-class and Sub-culture. (Perpetuated by the Politicians,
Program Administrators/Workers and Specific Ethnic Group leaders who all share that AGENDA!)
I wonder if there is "anyone" who could lead them to "Freedom"?
@11:18 & 9:55... good points. It is also notable that P. Phtd put MOST of it's "clinics" in the poor sections of our society. (documented)
ReplyDeletealso notable: "Minority women constitute only about 13% of the female population (age 15-44) in the United States, but they underwent approximately 36% of the abortions."
"Abortion has swept through the Black community like a scythe, cutting down every fourth member"
"...who could lead them to "Freedom"""?
Well...One thing is for sure it sure ain't Al Sharkton or Jesse.
JJ, what if the Bible clearly did say when life began? What then?
ReplyDeleteI wrote long responses to this and it disappeared.
im going to start a new string on this topic.
Someone said something about me stirring the pot.
maybe, but if i dont write about controversial issues, no one reads the blog.
if i do, then people readi it.
so its a balance.
i could write about my new life and my new job..
but if i dont write about controversial issues...
ReplyDeletepoint taken. guess we've proven that when yuo write about "regular" stuff the blog dies. eh?
Sad, but true. Keep stirrin'... I like it.
Oh and BTW, I would LOVE to hear about what you're up to now. Seriously.
I love a healthy debate.
ReplyDeleteI put a lot of thought into the issues I talk about, and that is why I land on the side that I take, and why I defend it so vigorously.
Many things that are hot button issues are a choice which hurts neither party.
Take gun control. I love guns, and believe in the right of self defense. If you don't like guns, so be it. I don't advocate that you have to own one. But many of those on the other side of the argument do want guns outlawed for everyone simply because they do not like them. I know some people personally who feel this way. Why not just live and let live on the gun issue?
Abortion is not as simple. I fall on the pro-life side of the abortion debate because I believe that a baby is a baby, no matter how far along in the process it is, and to kill a baby is murder. Now murder is not something I can just live and let live on. Pun intended. Any rational human knows that abortion is murder, because it is a life that, if left uninterrupted, would grow into a living, breathing, eating, pooping, baby. There is no argument against that.
"Did you kill your baby?"
"Uh, Yeah, but it wasn't a baby, just a lump of cells."
"Oh, well what would it be now if you hadn't killed it?"
"Uh, I guess it would be A BABY!"
I do feel there are cases which an abortion is necessary, such as incest or rape, or severe birth defects. But it has been shown that only 1% of abortions happen for these reason.
Government: Anyone who can't see that our government is heading in the wrong direction, ie: growing larger and larger every day, is just not paying attention. We seem to lose liberties all the time. The patriot act was a big step. I don't agree with the way things are headed. Hopefully it will change course.
Religion: Although sometimes very harmful, this is an issue that could be left alone, and people could believe whatever they want.
I personally don't believe in anything supernatural, be it gods, ghosts, angels, vampires or fairies. If the only argument you have is someone told you so, then that's not much of an argument in my book. Show me some proof. But what do I care if someone wants to worship a god or a devil, or a rock, as long as it doesn't cause me any grief. Of course, radicals who like to kill people because they drew a picture don't fall into this category.
oops, that should read "murder is something I *can't* just live and let live on.
ReplyDeleteNicely written Tom. I am a Christian and I DO believe in a real God, a real Jesus, and a real Holy Spirit, and angels and demons.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, you and I think a WHOLE lot alike and I enjoy your posts. (I know you didn't need me to say that, but it just felt it appropriate)
BTW, I like guns and own several. And in my mind it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the entitlement programs alone (left alone) are going to sink this nation to the financial abyss. We can't do anything for ourselves anymore. Much of the manufacturing has been shipped overseas. We essentially use the poorer nations as slave labor because we refuse to pay Americans a living wage. Plus the tax structure (and the unions) conspire to drive businesses out of business or overseas. It doesn't take a PHD to see that if we do nothing with the Al Queida they WILL destroy us. They don't want peace. They want conversion to Islam. By any means necessary. How quickly we forget 9/11?
On another note, jj, I hated to see you leave A.C., but thanks for caring enough to leave the blog up for a time. Only place in town to have a good argument...oh...er..discussion. jk. Except maybe one of the early morn coffee grog shops.
""murder is something I *can't* just live and let live on"
ReplyDeleteSo you are against capital punishment and military force? I can appreciate that.
Unless you feel you are important enough, in the grand scheme of things, to pick and choose who it is OK to murder.
Me? I am against murder of any kind.
@4:08 "...against murder of any kind."
ReplyDeleteYour logic is flawed. There is a vast difference between a thug carjacking & killing a citizen, vs a soldier being sent to battle to stop a crazed tyrant. (i.e. Hitler) Or the state ending a life that has taken a life in cold blood. The nation we live in chooses the laws and that happens to be Capital punishment. If you don't like it, then we have a wonderful system that does allow us to change laws if enough of us want to. (Iran doesn't have that right)
Using your logic, the Allies never would have stormed the beaches at Normandy and we probably all would be speaking German today. We never would have retaliated against the Japanese war machine and maybe, perhaps we would be speaking Japanese and practicing Shinto. Perposterous, you say? Well, look at S. America. Any idea why most of the peoples there speak Spanish? A little history works wonders.
You probably are the type of person who...if someone broke into their home and was hurting your family you would immediately reach for the telephone. I appreciate all law-enforcement. But, they usually only arrive AFTER a crime has been committed.
I don't think what our soldiers do to keep our country safe should be called murder, and I don't consider the execution of a murderer to be murder either. And not just because it is the law, but because they do not deserve to live.
ReplyDeleteNext you will no doubt say something about me choosing who lives and dies, and to that I can only say that if that were indeed the case, the population would be much smaller than it is now, and the world would be a much safer place to live without all the murderers, rapists, child molestors and terrorists. And no, I wouldn't mind getting my hands dirty doing it.
But killing an innocent child? You may think me barbaric because of the last paragraph, but I could never hurt a baby. People who do that can not be anything but sick.
Tom - Paragraph 1 - deserves to live...hmmmmm. According to who?
ReplyDeletePara #2 - Safer place, huh? According to who?
Para #3 - Complete agreement.
1. Me. I have no problem saying that there are a lot of people out there who need killin'. a LOT.
ReplyDelete2. Me. And anyone else who doesn't like sharing their world with criminal scum who prey on innocents.
3. I'm glad you agree.
Kinda what I thought, Tom. Thank you.
ReplyDelete@Tom...LOL Even though I know you're dead serious. Oh did I say "dead". ROTFL
ReplyDeleteSeriously now...I believe in Capital Punishment. I like the idea of being able to defend myself if someone is trying to harm me or mine.
So, killing is OK, as long as YOU get to decide who dies? Who could possibly take issue with that? Sounds sensible to me.
ReplyDelete7:06, I'm glad you agree.
ReplyDeleteWhat? Oh, that was sarcasm?
Are you one of those people who would picket to keep abortion legal in the morning, and then picket against executing a serial killer that same night?
It's okay to murder millions of babies, but the guy who raped and tortured and murdered someone should be allowed to live his life?
I once talked to a relative of someone who worked at the Maximum Security Prison in Eldorado. (His Son-in-law)
ReplyDeleteI got the impression that once those prisoners (who are all violent criminals) lost their freedom they were basically animals being housed and fed! (Maybe they were animals when they were "Free".)
They have no hope of ever returning to society!(Unless of course some "Liberal" finds a way to release them!)
Do I think that life is important? -Sure-
Do I think Man should play GOD? NO
Do I think that on this STAGE - there is a battle between GOOD and EVIL? YOU BET!
But, in reality while I can hope there is a chance that some of those who have chosen the path of EVIL - might find FOGIVENESS and GRACE!
Reality is they have already made their Choice!
Now should we execute those who do unthinkable things? (I have to admit thats not an easy chioce!)
But, I think the Politicians see it as an opportunity to create more JOBS!
(Btw: I once heard a Psychaitrist say that some of the people who do unthinkable things were born without a Conscience!)
I wonder where do you get a Conscience?