Thank you, Governer

[Perd Hapley]

What does relative worth have to do with anything? 

It's called muddying the waters. Like what Strings is doing, but more elegantly succinct.

>Are you serious? Or are you just off of your *expletive deleted* rocker?< (and others)

Oh, I realize that it's not a zero sum game. That said...

I don't see or hear any of the folks who are oh so vocal about protecting the unborn saying or doing jack about protecting the already born. Ever.

You would THINK that laws to protect kids would be a no-brainer... but there are so few actually pushing for them. So the only conclusion I can reach (in my "off my *expletive deleted* rocker" way) is that the folks so concerned about kids have exhausted themselves on the abortion issue...

So sorry if my crazy ramblings have offended you, in your stalwart defense of children (well... some of them).

What an amazingly easy "argument" to scotch. Observe:

For all your efforts to protect children (some of them) from abuse, I've never once seen anything from you about ending abortion. In fact, you think it should remain legal. You are obviously a hypocrite who doesn't care about children.

[zxcvbob]

There are lots of causes; pick one or two that "speak" to you, and do what you can to make the world a little better.  Since we don't all pick the same thing, that's how the resources get spread around.

[lupinus]

So why is the life of a person convicted of a heinous crime worth less than that of a human offspring that happens to be in utero?

Asked and answered. Someone convicted of a crime and sentenced to death has done something bad enough to be executed for it. Again, until you show me someone in the womb who has done something to warrant being killed it's a total apples and oranges argument.

>Are you serious? Or are you just off of your *expletive deleted* rocker?< (and others)

Oh, I realize that it's not a zero sum game. That said...

I don't see or hear any of the folks who are oh so vocal about protecting the unborn saying or doing jack about protecting the already born. Ever.

You would THINK that laws to protect kids would be a no-brainer... but there are so few actually pushing for them. So the only conclusion I can reach (in my "off my *expletive deleted* rocker" way) is that the folks so concerned about kids have exhausted themselves on the abortion issue...

So sorry if my crazy ramblings have offended you, in your stalwart defense of children (well... some of them).

Perhaps because it's a completely separate topic and I have no idea why or how in the hell you are equating the two?

We all spend so much of our time fighting for gun rights that, apparently, we don't care about animal abuse and live puppies being used as pinatas!

[charby]

Why is the liberty of a person convicted of a heinous crime worth less than yours?

They broke the norms of society and now separated from society. You and I maintain the norms by not committing what society has deemed as heinous so we get to enjoy liberty of being within society.

[charby]

What does relative worth have to do with anything?  

The person who commits a heinous crime's life is precious; too bad he wasted it.  It does however mean we need to be careful with defining the threshold for "heinous".  

...and we get to be God by putting someone to death for crimes deemed heinous by society. That seems to go against Romans 2:1.

[Perd Hapley]

Charby, you're making an arbitrary distinction between deprivation of liberty, and deprivation of life. Both are about "separation from society." Both could be described, spuriously, as "playing God."

If you want to argue against the death penalty, bring your A game something better than your D game.

[Levant]

>Are you serious? Or are you just off of your *expletive deleted* rocker?< (and others)

Oh, I realize that it's not a zero sum game. That said...

I don't see or hear any of the folks who are oh so vocal about protecting the unborn saying or doing jack about protecting the already born. Ever.

You would THINK that laws to protect kids would be a no-brainer... but there are so few actually pushing for them. So the only conclusion I can reach (in my "off my *expletive deleted* rocker" way) is that the folks so concerned about kids have exhausted themselves on the abortion issue...

So sorry if my crazy ramblings have offended you, in your stalwart defense of children (well... some of them).

There are already laws to protect children but when the same liberal judges that find a right for abortion let serial child rapists and child pornographers off with a slap on the wrist we don't have much hope.  Conservatives aren't the problem.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk

[roo_ster]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/314231-paul-ratchets-up-feud-with-christie-lashes-out-at-hogwash-criticism

It’s really I think kind of sad and cheap that he would use the cloak of 9/11 victims and say – ‘I’m the only one who cares about these victims.’ Hogwash!,” Paul said on Fox’s Hannity. “If he cared about protecting this country maybe he wouldn’t be in this gimme-gimme-gimme, give me all the money you have in Washington or don’t have, and he’d be a little more fiscally responsive and know that the way we defend our country, the way we have enough money for national defense, is by being frugal and not being gimme-gimme all the time.

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/173250/

Well, he’s a man of strong appetites.

[roo_ster]

KNEW I could count on someone to hit this...

>again.  If by ignoring them you mean trying to keep them from murdering unborn folks...<

You just demonstrated the point. You are SO caught on "save the unborn" you have nothing left for those already here and living in Hell.

If a quarter of the energy spent on trying to eliminate abortion was expended working on laws to protect currently living abused children, those kids would be in a MUCH better place.

But no... y'all find "fighting for the rights of the unborn" to much better: screw those snots that are getting beaten/raped/pimped out. So long as they weren't aborted, who gives a damn.

Frankly, this applies:
http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=tea&currency=cny

Strings, just because you are not paying attention to efforts by Christians to better the lives of children outside the womb doesn't mean it doesn't happen. 

Kind of like the homeless/addict/mentally ill problem.  The local newsrags pushed for and regularly reports on the city homeless shelter that cost the taxpayers $buttload to build and run, services X number of folks, and has existed for 5 years or so.  Usually stories like, "Despite budget overruns, rampant consumption of alcohol and drugs on premises, and vicious asaults...things are looking up!"  Very, very rarely mentioned is the homeless shelter+ run by the big Southern Baptist church downtown that helps more people (some multiple of X) on a smaller budget, and has been doing so for 59 years.  And the ignorant anti-christian clique moans "Why is their preacher talking about homosexuality when we have a homeless problem?  Why doesn't he and those rich a-holes try to help them?"  Well, they have been for nigh on 60 years in a formal capacity.  Funded by those "rich a-holes."  The legacy media would prefer to splutter in rage about his latest preaching against homosexuality and its deleterious consequences.

[For a similar reason, the NYT best sellers list exclude most Christian-themed books...despite such regularly outselling NYT "bestsellers."  Yet another blatant attempt to minimize the efforts, influence, and works of Christians in this country.]

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

I don't see or hear any of the folks who are oh so vocal about protecting the unborn saying or doing jack about protecting the already born. Ever.

that would make you blind or mentally impaired

[charby]

Charby, you're making an arbitrary distinction between deprivation of liberty, and deprivation of life. Both are about "separation from society." Both could be described, spuriously, as "playing God."

If you want to argue against the death penalty, bring your A game something better than your D game.

I'm not arguing against of for it, I just want to know why the prolife people tend to be pro death penalty, and opposite for the pro choice crowd.

[Perd Hapley]

...the prolife people tend to be pro death penalty...

...because they oppose murder.

...and opposite for the pro choice crowd...

...because they don't care quite as much.

[charby]

...because they oppose murder.

So killing a murderer is okay, kind of a oxymoron isn't it?

[lupinus]

So killing a murderer is okay,

Yes, when guilt is assured

kind of a oxymoron isn't it?

No

[Perd Hapley]

So killing a murderer is okay, kind of a oxymoron isn't it?

No, killing a murderer is more than "okay." It should never be something we do because it is "okay." We should only do it if we feel it is required by the demands of justice. I do, so I support the killing of murderers.

So killing a murderer is justice. Murder is a transgression of justice. Justice and unjustice. No oxymorons here. 

(Yes, I know that unjustice is probably not a word. Kind of fun, though.)

[AZRedhawk44]

Staying out of the current side-topic, but gotta say:



Big as an elephant, loud as a jackass.

Looks like a donkey.  Sounds like a donkey.  Associates with donkeys.

[gunsmith]

Big as an elephant, loud as a jackass.

Looks like a donkey.  Sounds like a donkey.  Associates with donkeys.

Something I think we all agree on.

WRT the thread drift, it seems to me the pro-life side seems more concerned about the well being of innocents and  the "choice" side seems more concerned with the well being of the guilty.

I think I'm against the death penalty, or I know I would feel really ill if it was me applying it.
Yet I'm not going to vote against a pro gun candidate if she is for it but voting for a "choice" candidate is probably a deal breaker - fortunately so far I've never had to worry. ( since becoming a "conservative" )
I am glad that science is catching up and recognizing that children feel pain before they are born and that children can survive younger and younger every year.

[Levant]

I'm not arguing against of for it, I just want to know why the prolife people tend to be pro death penalty, and opposite for the pro choice crowd.

I want to know why pro-abortion people who are willing to kill the innocent are the opposite, being so protective of the lives of the guilty... or should I say baby killers are protective of the lives of other killers... Never mind; I answered my own question.  I have the connection now.

[charby]

So can a person be pro-life and anti-death penalty?

[Perd Hapley]

"Pro-life" simply means "anti-abortion," so yes.

[lupinus]

So can a person be pro-life and anti-death penalty?

In the context of abortion, absolutely.

And keep in mind, there's a very large number who aren't for either practice.

Sent via tapatalk

[makattak]

So can a person be pro-life and anti-death penalty?

There's this rather obscure religion called "Roman Catholicism" that follows that exact path....

[RevDisk]

Staying out of the current side-topic, but gotta say:

Big as an elephant, loud as a jackass.

Looks like a donkey.  Sounds like a donkey.  Associates with donkeys.

I wouldn't care if he is skinny and quiet. His looks aren't important to me, because I'm not considering him for a movie role or modeling career.

He's tainted goods now. If he got to be a POTUS, he'd be another Bush or Obama.

[charby]

I was talking with a few fairly liberal democrats over the past few days and I asked what kind of Republican candidate would they vote for president. Almost everyone of them said a fiscal conservative that was socially moderate to liberal. They said they get most turned off by how fanatical some candidates get over a few hot button social issues. They went so far as to say that the fiscal conservative has to be credible, offer a believable plan to curtail government spending, in all areas. Many of them were also tired of the all the NSA type spying stories too.

So there you have it, I personally don't think a social conservative will every be elected president in the foreseeable future.

[Perd Hapley]

I was talking with a few fairly liberal democrats over the past few days and I asked what kind of Republican candidate would they vote for president. Almost everyone of them said a fiscal conservative that was socially moderate to liberal. They said they get most turned off by how fanatical some candidates get over a few hot button social issues. They went so far as to say that the fiscal conservative has to be credible, offer a believable plan to curtail government spending, in all areas. Many of them were also tired of the all the NSA type spying stories too.

So there you have it, I personally don't think a social conservative will every be elected president in the foreseeable future.

I'm trying to figure out why "fairly liberal democrats" should be picking the GOP candidate, or why the GOP should give more weight to their input than the ideas of those who already vote Republican and have more in common with the party's platform. First of all, they are "fairly liberal democrats" - the people that aren't voting for the GOP, anyway. The type of people ("fairly liberal" people) whom the Democrat party exists to represent (or cynically use, if you prefer). Of course they're going to suggest a candidate that looks for all the world like a "fairly liberal democrat."

So, they want a "fiscal conservative." Yeah, sure. I guess that's why they are "fairly liberal," and vote for Democrats.    I guess they'll want a fiscal conservative until he starts cutting funding for gay, Latino baby whales. They want the candidate to be "socially moderate to liberal," which is to say, far, far to the left. So they want a Democrat; just one that's not as goofy as the Obama.


And to the OP, not charby, and because someone ought to say it - it's "Governor."