ferris209 said:

darth_ender said:

Sorry if I was not clear because that is exactly what I meant.  I meant that regardless of what type of firearm a person chose to use, he/she should be licensed to do so, not to necessarily register every weapon he/she owns.  At least it's something you could tolerate with your nose plugged.

Well, I can understand the sentiment, but I'd still have to argue against a licensing procedure. I base this on the fact that owning a gun is a God given right that is unalienable. No other rights need a license.

Should one need a license to make a political speech?

Should a person need a license to practice a particular religion?

This is a good point.  However, there are certainly limits, just like there are limits to the other statutes in the Bill of Rights.  For instance, to practice certain forms of freedom of speech (such as protests), one needs a permit and must exercise that right in appointed areas.  To yell, "Fire," in a movie theater is a crime.  In other words, it is a God-given right, but couple with state-mandated responsibility.  The law should determine where to draw the line, and clearly there are those who take the laws to an extreme, but nevertheless, my point is that there are limits and permits for even our unalienable rights.

------------------------------------

On a side note, I am in mourning right now guys, my badge unfortunately is covered with a black band. An old friend of mine was responding to backup another Officer yesterday morning when he was killed by a drunk driver. Officer Josh Williams of the Waxahachie Police Department was a dear friend and I will miss him. He was good man with a great soul. There is a hole in my heart. Rest in peace my brother.

http://www.odmp.org/officer/21345-police-officer-josh-williams

 

I am terribly sorry to hear this.  I can't say it any better than has already been said, but please be careful, and thanks for all you do.

Deleted.

Warbler said:

1. it was not my intent on segueing to something about Chic-Fil-A.

2. what did they do that has everyone upset? 

1. No, it was my intent. Though I forgot to explain why I thought it was a nice segue.

Warbler said:

IF all Chick-Fil-A did was practice free speech and didn't commit any acts of discrimination,  I agree this stuff has gone too far.    stopping hate is one thing,  violating the 1st amendment is another.

However, I encourage people to boycott Chick-Fil-A, if they want.   After all, people are perfectly free to choose not to frequent a restaurant for whatever reason they so choose.  

That's a very little IF (not to criticize you) simply because NOBODY is claiming the restaurant violated any laws. Liberals are outright saying that the restaurant should be banished for its owners' stance on traditional marriage.

Maybe if we looked very hard (and rest assured there are political operatives out there doing so in order to make the story appear legitimate) we would find some instance of possible discrimination. I think if we looked very hard at any national business, we could find at least 1 example. Expect to see such a story in the next couple weeks.

If there were a Chick-Fill-A near me, I would eat there simply to support the 1st Amendment (and the chicken is tasty). And that was the segue I saw, your differentiation of donation and purchase. They are not necessarily so different. Which is why some people won't eat there now...even though Chick-Fil-A has always been a Christian business.

Still, it's the big picture that troubles me most - that such attacks are so widespread and mainstream among liberal politicians.

Can't remember the last time I saw this thread so dead.  Anyway...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Rasmussen shows Romney leading Obama nationwide by 47% to 43%.  I think Obama is leading in swing states, but Romney is leading overall.  This, in spite of being on constant defense against Obama and his minions.

<blockquote>
<p><strong>Warbler</strong> said:</p>
<p>still haven't decided what to do with my vote in November.&nbsp;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm going to take my vote, dry it out, and smoke it.</p>

It was staying down for awhile there.

Obama has bounced up in the polls lately. Gallup shows a perpetually tied race and many other polls show an Obama lead. Obama seems to have the edge in many swing states. Some speculation is that he successfully spent a lot in those states on negatives advertisement. It is too early to make any conclusions. Once we get into the debates and people start paying attention more then we can get a much better idea.

To me, it is amazing how shamelessly negative the Democrats have been, pushing out the claim that Romney didn't pay any taxes for 10 years and that Romney basically caused a woman to die of cancer.

We used to hear about a new tone in politics, about talking about policy rather than using personal attacks, but we hear none of that now.

I mean, even if you think Romney is wrong on his claims that Obama is gutting welfare reform, is not supportive of Israel, or is opposing extended voting for the military...at least they're policy issues.

To be fair, Democrats are talking about policy issues in addition to the shameless personal attacks, but that doesn't excuse it.

Thoughts on the parody music video? Obama I used to know

Warbler said:

still haven't decided what to do with my vote in November. 

Well, I don't like Romney, but I don't like Obama even more.

I hope you decide to vote Romney just to at least give him a try. Otherwise, your options are voting for Obama and ensuring another four years of failure or voting third party which is essentially a vote for Obama.

Again, I'm not pro-Romney so much as I am anti-Obama.

I will be voting for Romney. He's gotta be better than what we've got.

This has always been my problem with the death penalty:

In fact, it's time to get rid of the death penalty altogether. There have been too many instances in which people were executed, only to have evidence turn up later that proved their innocence.

Warbler said:

not sure about that.  

btw, I read in the paper today that your state executed a retarded man.

http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20120809_Inquirer_Editorial__Can_t_justify_this_execution.html

So. I don't think that should necessarily be an excuse to rape and murder.

TV's Frink said:

This has always been my problem with the death penalty:

In fact, it's time to get rid of the death penalty altogether. There have been too many instances in which people were executed, only to have evidence turn up later that proved their innocence.

And it's too late then.

I am an ardent supporter of the death penalty. Some people just need killing. I have looked genuine evil in the eyes and can assure you, he would have killed you without one hesitation. Fortunately, we put him down in 2000. He cannot hurt anyone now.

Okay then, what about those instances where there is not one doubt of the persons guilt? Where there are numerous witnesses, video, officer testimony. What then? Shall we abolish the death penalty even for that?

Warbler said:

not saying it is an excuse to rape or murder, but a retarded person can't understand he/his actions and the consequences there of, like we can.   Also they can be more susceptible to being talking into doing something evil by some that wants to take advantage of them.   Should they still be punished?  Yeah, but do they truly deserve the death penalty?

I think you ought to research this guys execution further, there were issues with the one test he took years ago that claimed he had an IQ if 61.

Additionally, I think it needs to be a case by case basis. Obviously, if a person with down syndrome or a history of severe mental issues, okay there's an argument there. But just because they score under 70, doesn't mean they're really retarded, clinically retarded yes, but retarded enough to not know what they were doing no. You can talk to someone for five minutes and determine if they knew what they were doing when they did it.

Besides, I disagree that an IQ score ought to be the sole factor in determining if a person should be executed for their crimes or not. Many of the people we deal with on the streets are as dumb as a bucket of rocks, but they are very intentional in the many crimes they commit.

This guy had no mental health history and made a 61 on a single test that I don't think was even administered by a licensed psychologist. They tested him numerous times over the years thereafter and found no retardation. Texas incorporates a number of factors besides an inmate's IQ, including the inmate's adaptive behavior and functioning.

ferris209 said:

Okay then, what about those instances where there is not one doubt of the persons guilt? Where there are numerous witnesses, video, officer testimony. What then? Shall we abolish the death penalty even for that?

like I said before,   I would not be against the death penalty for the guy that did the theater shooting.   

Yep.

Warbler said:

not saying it is an excuse to rape or murder, but a retarded person can't understand he/his actions and the consequences there of, like we can.   Also they can be more susceptible to being talking into doing something evil by some that wants to take advantage of them.   Should they still be punished?  Yeah, but do they truly deserve the death penalty?

This is a very broad statement. A retarded person can understand when their actions cause a death and that it was a bad thing to do. If they lacked the necessary knowing state of mind, he would not have been found guilty of murder. It does not matter under the law if you've been talked into something, regardless of IQ. The man in Texas was found to have acted intentionally and understood the nature of his actions.

The Court made an exception for executing mentally retarded people because such people do not necessarily understand the connection between their sentence of death and their act of murder (though they recognize it was a bad thing to do). Thus other mentally retarded people won't be deterred and that person won't understand why they are being put to death, or so the theory goes. The question is at what point is a person capable of understanding that the sentence of death is the result of what they did. That determination has been left to the states, which ferris does a better job of explaining.

I have moral reservations about the death penalty and sometimes think I wouldn't be sorry to see it abolished. Then again, there are evil worthless people for whom even the death penalty seems insufficient. It is really terrible for any innocent person to be sentenced to death. But if that same innocent person were instead sentenced to life in prison, I think we would find out about it far less often. Being sentenced to death brings such great scrutiny and perpetual appeals that it is so much more likely that an innocent person will go free. I don't know that a life sentence is kinder to innocent people than the death penalty. They're both wrong, but the same scrutiny will never be applied to all those sentenced to life in prison, whatever glimmer of hope we hold that one day, after some number of decades one innocent person might enjoy their last few years in freedom.

ferris209 said:

I am an ardent supporter of the death penalty. Some people just need killing. I have looked genuine evil in the eyes and can assure you, he would have killed you without one hesitation. Fortunately, we put him down in 2000. He cannot hurt anyone now.

I am curious what you felt during that encounter.

-------

I would appreciate thoughts on this arrest. I have seen suggestions he does not have a concealed carry permit but most reports seem to say he shouldn't have guns because he's on prescription medication...though they don't yet tell us what the medication is. Possibly trumped up charges? Deserving of punishment for being unwise? A potential Zimmerman?

Comma, continuation of sentence,

Warbler said:

Mrebo said: I don't know that a life sentence is kinder to innocent people than the death penalty. They're both wrong, but the same scrutiny will never be applied to all those sentenced to life in prison, whatever glimmer of hope we hold that one day, after some number of decades one innocent person might enjoy their last few years in freedom.

not really sure how you can argue that is better to kill an innocent man than keep in jail for the rest life, thus giving him chance to prove his innocence. 

I'm not arguing it's better. I'm making the realist observation that those who get the death penalty have advocates who intensely scrutinize their cases and that since the average time spent on death row is about 14 years, there is a lot of time to find out if they were innocent. Those inmates would not receive the same attention otherwise.

As for the execution on Texas,  I hadn't realized there was real doubt about him being retarded.   The way the editorial is written, makes it look like his retardation is proven fact.    hmmm.  

He is mentally retarded. The question in Texas was whether that retardation was of such a degree he should be exempt from the death penalty. Texas makes an individual determination, rather than using IQ as a one size fits all rule. Also I'm glad we're not making a fuss about terminology - retarded versus intellectually challenged, etc.

Warbler said:

10. not sure how you could relate this to Zimmerman. 

Thank you for your response.

The Zimmerman allusion has to do with a guy wanting to be a hero.

No period, end of reply?