livendive

Again, the death penalty is cheap. I disagree with your assertion. So do many others. I do not believe you have a right to force others to act in accordance with your beliefs on the matter (and vice versa). Blues, Dave Death is murder when done by another's hand. And that's why Texas is currently pursuing charges on the many faces of "the Orkin man". Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Hmm...I'm pretty sure democracy also predates the Federalist Papers. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I'm an atheist-leaning agnostic and my wife is an atheist. Our marriage has zero basis in religion. Also, the institution itself predates any of the abrahimic religions, both in Asia and in ancient Egypt. The fact that subscribers to these belief-systems have tried to co-opt the term for their own purposes matters not to me. Also, plenty of religious institutions in the US (a country theoretically founded on religious freedom) are happy to conduct same-sex marriages, and most states allow a justice of the peace to marry two people without any religious significance. Of course Turtle and I are both ordained ministers with the Universal Life Church, an institution that promotes religious freedom and simply espouses "Do only that which is right." He and I can differ on what we believe is "right", and both of us should only perform those weddings that we believe fit the bill. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Oddly enough, I'd consider Merriam-Webster to be a more reputable source for the definition of an English word than some random person on an internet forum. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I would. ***Incorrect only if adhering to the definitions in use when the founding father's penned their documents. Which is all that matters... And which is the only reasonable adherence when discussing US Law... unless you are a Progressive. Oh, well if you would, then you would be the slightly retarded one. Since in our parliamentary constitutional monarchy our government is elected through a democratic process, one would be fully in their right, under the english language, to call it a democracy. Your founding father's definitons also included blacks as not being equal to whites. Women not being equal to men. Obviously over time definitions and interpretations change. You analogy makes no sense. It is like saying that all governments that use voting is a democracy. Ok, that's fine, as long as you can confirm that everyone that owns a hammer is a carpenter, or that everyone that has a band-aid is a healthcare worker. Definition of DEMOCRACY 1 a: government by the people; especially: rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Again, the death penalty is cheap. I disagree with your assertion. So do many others. I do not believe you have a right to force others to act in accordance with your beliefs on the matter (and vice versa). Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

That's a fundamental trait of civil right issues...sometimes the government has to act against the wishes of a prejudiced majority. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Rapidly multiplying tissue inside a woman's body doesn't become a human life till it resembles and/or is recognized as such by the host. Neither you nor I have any standing to tell her exactly how many such cells will cost her the liberty of deciding what to do with her own body. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Is this true in Texas? Not that the debate over the death penalty morality should be of cost savings (see China), but if it's still costing more to execute in Texas where 500 have been so punished, then it's never going to be cheaper than just jailing them on Alcatraz 3000. According to this article, the trial costs alone far outweigh the costs of life imprisonment, and that doesn't include the costs associated with imprisonment during the often lengthy appeals process, or the execution itself. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Although your enthusiasm is obvious, you sound pretty young. Speaking as someone with a fair amount of experience and education in environmental topics, suffice it to say that I don't find your posts the least bit enlightening. You're doing more to undermine your argument than to support it. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

When Hawaii became one of the United States in 1959, did the other 49 states become something less? When a new species is added to the endangered species list, do the ones already on it become something less? Was the sanctity of a same-race marriages reduced by Loving v. Virginia? Or when Alabama overturned its ban on interracial marriage in 2000? This is not a case of subtraction by addition. The list of federally recognized marriages wasn't reduced in any way, but rather expanded. My marriage is the same today as it was two days ago. If someone else chooses to think less of their marriage today, the fault is their own. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Except when you get it wrong...then an eye for no eye is just state sanctioned murder, not justice. Life without parole is cheaper and just as effective at protecting the public, with the added benefit of being reversible if you convict an innocent person. I've heard arguments on both sides of the deterrence value of a death penalty. Personally, it would not figure in to my decision on whether to commit a capital crime. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I suspect that I agree with your general sentiment, but your posts the last couple of days detract strongly from your argument. Logical and civil debate = good. Spamming = bad. Dishonest practices by the opposing side of the debate do not make similar actions by you any better. Rather, engaging in such tactics tarnishes the credibility of valid arguments made by others on your side of the issue, as we become guilty by association. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

What was stolen, a sense of superiority? They still have the exact same relationship with their spouse, e.g. my relationship with my bride is entirely unaffected by this ruling. If these people you're referring to allow a ruling on other people's marriages to taint (or ruin) their perception of their own marriage, that's their own fault. Their relationship is no different today than it was two days ago. The only thing that's changed is their perception of it. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I didn't get an invitation to that party, but I would have attended, gladly. The death penalty is a pretty controversial subject. In its best possible light, I liken it to pressure washing a septic tank. There are less radical alternatives, but I can see where some might consider it necessary. That said, you can't do such a task without climbing into the tank and occasionally getting some on you. Is it necessary? That's debatable, but I can't imagine why it would be a source of civic pride. "We pressure-wash more septic tanks than anyone else!" just seems odd, at best, and that's only if the organization considered this a primary duty. "We kill more convicts than anyone else!" lends itself to a much less flattering interpretation. Are Texans proud of the fact that they have more criminals deserving of the death penalty? Or of the fact that they're more willing to kill a convict, understanding that this increases the likelihood of getting one wrong, as in the case of Todd Willlingham? And if Texas has such a good system, why is it so resistant to critical reviews that could help improve it, e.g. a governor who forbids further investigation into past executions? From the outside, Texas seems a bit sadistic, and more interested in killing people than exacting justice. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

So, you think its acceptable for your employer to fire you for something you did 10 years ago? It happens all the time, but that's irrelevant, as her employer didn't fire her. Businesses which previously associated with her for marketing purposes chose to no longer do so, which seems like a reasonable move. Who wants the smelly kid at the pointy end of their sales efforts? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

They're finally executing that woman who killed 3 people? So much for SWIFT justice...we'll have to work on that. These guys seem to have a pretty quick process for women, but I heard even they excuse the mentally handicapped, so probably too liberal. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

It didn't pass for purely procedural reasons. I predict they'll pass it pretty soon, even if it means closing the gallery so protesters can't interfere. And it's a BS law. They pulled the same shit in Virginia, but they did it through the Board of Health instead of the legislature. The BOH decided that clinics that offer abortion needed to conform to the same building standards as full sized hospitals, which effectively shut them all down. Of course, they sold it as concern for the health of the mother, but it was just taking a backdoor to banning abortion without having the political power to do it through legitimate means. Texas is using the same tactic by requiring crazy hurdles for abortion doctors to meet before they can practice. Either way, it'll get struck down by the Feds. It will just waste everyone's time and money, and probably endanger a few hundred pregnant women in the meantime. Rick Perry had called them back into special session on July 1st to pass the bill. Presumably they need a few days to clean up confetti after they celebrate their 500th execution tonight. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Not sure it helped everyone with more freedom. A minority, yes, they have more freedom, the mojority had theirs squashed just a little more. How so? The majority has every right and freedom they had yesterday. Blues, Dave That all depends on your point of view, doesn't it? I don't see how it's subjective. I'm straight. I can still do everything today that I could yesterday, as can you. Our do you have some specific restrictions in mind that are suddenly in place that I'm unaware of? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Not sure it helped everyone with more freedom. A minority, yes, they have more freedom, the mojority had theirs squashed just a little more. How so? The majority has every right and freedom they had yesterday. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I think it's amusing that the left-leaning justices basically deferred to federalism as the basis for their judgement and the right-leaning dissenters essentially discounted the House Republicans as having no standing to defend DOMA. Edit to add: Also, it was not possible for the President to do the right thing, as the clear intentions of the Republican majority in the House are to deny him any action. So while the plaintiffs and defendant agreed on the proper disposition of the case, actually carrying that out was not possible within the law. I'm not sure how one could bring a case to court that pits Congress against a President when there is disagreement on a constitutional issue. Is that even possible? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Of course this doesn't negate the fact that redistricting in Texas is an exercise in racism. It just makes such bigotry legal. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Sweet! Nice to see some affirmation of equality and a rejection of governance by religion. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I agree with all of this. We know that neither party was totally in the right, both were somewhat in the wrong. Whether the surviving combatant's wrongs are sufficient to justify a conviction is a question best decided by a judge and jury. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I make no comment on either Obama's policies or Bush's... but you realise that internationally there was a hell of a lot more laughing going on under the last guy, right? Especially when he got elected a second time, I mean, the world did a collective "seriously America?!?". .