Juvenile death penalty unconstitutional

[strandinthewind]

High court: Juvenile death penalty unconstitutional

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Constitution forbids the execution of killers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes, ending a practice used in 19 states.

The 5-4 decision throws out the death sentences of about 70 juvenile murderers and bars states from seeking to execute minors for future crimes.

The executions, the court said, were unconstitutionally cruel.

It was the second major defeat at the high court in three years for supporters of the death penalty. Justices in 2002 banned the execution of the mentally retarded, also citing the Constitution's Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishments.

The court had already outlawed executions for those who were 15 and younger when they committed their crimes.

Tuesday's ruling prevents states from making 16- and 17-year-olds eligible for execution.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, cited the fact that most states don't allow the execution of juvenile killers and those that do use the penalty infrequently. The trend, he noted, was to abolish the practice.

"Our society views juveniles ... as categorically less culpable than the average criminal," Kennedy wrote.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/01/scotus.death.penalty.ap/index.html

[strandinthewind]

no surprise it was 5-4 :rolleyes:

[GypsySorcerer]

I read that this morning. It's about time. :nod:

[GateandGarden]

My best friend did a presentation in one of her classes about how barbaric it is to execute minors, and it's sad how she was met with strong opposition. :distress: I just don't get it. Thanks for posting that; I'm glad to see the verdict. Too bad that it was 5-4.

[gldstwmn]

no surprise it was 5-4 :rolleyes:

Ooh. Let me guess who the five were: Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, Breyer and O'Connor.

[strandinthewind]

I think the arguments on both sides are interesting. However, the studies, I think, show the DP is not a deterrent or at least not so significant a deterrent that it warrants the validation of executing an innocent person.

Again, I mostly am against the DP and at times am totally against it. Then, I think about people like Timothy McV. and OBL and I change my mind. I am only human - so sue me :cool:

[gldstwmn]

I read that this morning. It's about time. :nod:
No kidding. :nod:

[strandinthewind]

Ooh. Let me guess who the five were: Ginsburg, Stephens, Souter, Breyer and O'Connor.

I am trying to find the decision.

[gldstwmn]

Oh my gah, Kennedy voted in favor? :shocked:

[strandinthewind]

March 1, 2005
Supreme Court Bars Death Penalty for Juvenile Killers
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

ASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Constitution forbids the execution of killers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes, ending a practice used in 19 states.

The 5-4 decision throws out the death sentences of about 70 juvenile murderers and bars states from seeking to execute minors for future crimes.

The executions, the court said, were unconstitutionally cruel.

It was the second major defeat at the high court in three years for supporters of the death penalty. Justices in 2002 banned the execution of the mentally retarded, also citing the Constitution's Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishments.

The court had already outlawed executions for those who were 15 and younger when they committed their crimes.

Tuesday's ruling prevents states from making 16- and 17-year-olds eligible for execution.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, noted that most states don't allow the execution of juvenile killers and those that do use the penalty infrequently. The trend, he noted, was to abolish the practice.

"Our society views juveniles ... as categorically less culpable than the average criminal," Kennedy wrote.

Juvenile offenders have been put to death in recent years in just a few other countries, including Iran, Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia. All those countries have gone on record as opposing capital punishment for minors.

The Supreme Court has permitted states to impose capital punishment since 1976 and more than 3,400 inmates await execution in the 38 states that allow death sentences.

Justices were called on to draw an age line in death cases after Missouri's highest court overturned the death sentence given to a 17-year-old Christopher Simmons, who kidnapped a neighbor in Missouri, hog-tied her and threw her off a bridge. Prosecutors say he planned the burglary and killing of Shirley Crook in 1993 and bragged that he could get away with it because of his age.

The four most liberal justices had already gone on record in 2002, calling it "shameful" to execute juvenile killers. Those four, joined by Kennedy, also agreed with Tuesday's decision: Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, as expected, voted to uphold the executions. They were joined by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Currently, 19 states allow executions for people under age 18: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, Texas and Virginia.

In a dissent, Scalia decried the decision, arguing that there has been no clear trend of declining juvenile executions to justify a growing consensus against the practice.

"The court says in so many words that what our people's laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: 'In the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty,' he wrote in a 24-page dissent.

"The court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our nation's moral standards," Scalia wrote.

from www.nytimes.com

[gldstwmn]

March 1, 2005
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
from www.nytimes.com

A woman? Jesus H. Christ. Bet she's pro-life. :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

Supreme Court Rules Death Penalty for Youths Unconstitutional

Tuesday, March 01, 2005



NEW YORK — The U.S. Supreme Court (search) ruled on Tuesday that the death penalty for 16- and 17-year-old offenders is unconstitutional.

The 5-4 decision in Roper v. Simmons (search) affects 19 states that still subject youths to capital punishment, along with 72 death-row inmates who committed their crimes as teenagers.

In a somewhat surprising development, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, previously seen as the "swing" voter in the case, joined Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in a dissent.

Rather, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who in 1989 voted in favor of upholding the death penalty for 16- and 17-year-olds, wrote the majority opinion.

"When a juvenile offender commits a heinous crime, the state can exact forfeiture of some of the most basic liberties, but the state cannot extinguish his life and his potential to attain a mature understanding of his own humanity," Kennedy quoted from the majority ruling.

Justices David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens, Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg also voted with the majority.

The offender in question in the case, Christopher Simmons, robbed and killed a 46-year-old Missouri woman in 1993, when he was 17. While a 1998 high court decision prevented his 15-year-old accomplice from being tried for capital murder, Simmons was convicted and sent to death row.

The five affirming justices based their opinion on the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments — specifically, on the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

The court's decision marks the third biggest restriction on the death penalty in 17 years, and may be seen by advocates as moving the United States closer to a full abolition of capital punishment.

FOX News' Anna Persky contributed to this report.

http://www.ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=272474

[gldstwmn]

BTW, this is the most liberal decision to come down the pike in a while. It makes me a little bit hopeful that we haven't gone completely off on the right wing rail.

[strandinthewind]

A woman? Jesus H. Christ. Bet she's pro-life. :rolleyes:

She is the most powerful member of the Court. She is the swing vote and thus the most sought after. She is pro-choice to a certain degree.

[gldstwmn]

She is the most powerful member of the Court. She is the swing vote and thus the most sought after. She is pro-choice to a certain degree.

I still don't get it. :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Here is her history on the DP

http://www.issues2000.org/Court/Sandra_Day_O_Connor_Crime.htm

[strandinthewind]

Here is the decision

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01mar20051115/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-633.pdf

[DrummerDeanna]

My god, 5-4? That is very scary that anyone would contemplate voting for that. I just assumed that even with conservatives, there's a point where compassion kicks in.

:laugh: You assume too much on that one ;)

[strandinthewind]

:laugh: You assume too much on that one ;)

Well, the facts of this case made the defendant easy to hate and made the "I am just a minor who did not know what he was doing" defense a little hard to swallow. This guy planned to execute his neighbor, with whom he had a previous altercation, by convincing two of his friends to break into her house, kidnap her, duct tape her, rough her up, and then put her in a bad and throw her over a bridge - all out of petty spite. Then, he bragged the next day about what he had done. It is hard to feel sorry for anyone who would do that :shrug: Does that mean they should be put to death - well there is the rub.

Personally, I think this strengthens the DP from now on because it will apply only to adults, where most, right or wrong, are comfortable with it.

[Hawkeye]

My best friend did a presentation in one of her classes about how barbaric it is to execute minors, and it's sad how she was met with strong opposition. :distress: I just don't get it. Thanks for posting that; I'm glad to see the verdict. Too bad that it was 5-4.

I don't think it's sad she was met with oppostion. What's wrong with killing two 16 year olds who did a school shooting.

[Moony]

..
I don't think it's sad she was met with oppostion. What's wrong with killing two 16 year olds who did a school shooting.
...
I just think the death penalty is disgusting. Period. Especially when it comes to juveniles.

[Hawkeye]

you people act like this is a bunch of little children being executed or something. Think columbine kids if they hadn't already executed themselves :laugh:

[Moony]

you people act like this is a bunch of little children being executed or something. Think columbine kids if they hadn't already executed themselves :laugh:
...yes, a real laughing matter....

[GateandGarden]

you people act like this is a bunch of little children being executed or something. Think columbine kids if they hadn't already executed themselves :laugh:You know how I feel about this. And of course I feel strongly about it if it's young people being executed. And the kids who shot people at Columbine High were still young. I do think it's a shame and sad that my friend was met with such strong opposition when presenting her research and opinion because I hate how primitive our society is. I think it's sad that so many of our citizens are so narrow-minded and conventional to a degree that is horrifying. Whether you like it or not, Lux and others will tell you that we're the only supposedly "progressive" country that has not abolished the death penalty. The only thing worse than that to me is the idea that we could execute minors. It's hard for me to tolerate such a notion.

And, as Danny said, it's quite a laughing matter. :rolleyes:

[SuzeQuze]

...yes, a real laughing matter....

My thoughts exactly. How is that funny? :shrug: It's just tragic.

I do believe that even some minors who have committed murder can not be rehabilitated. The ones that are more sociopathic can get life without parole. For some minors that is not too severe a sentence. I don't see the need for the DP ever.

[Hawkeye]

My thoughts exactly. How is that funny? :shrug: It's just tragic


I said how can you not want the columbine kids executed and then I thought it was funny that they executed themselves first.

[Hawkeye]

You know how I feel about this. And of course I feel strongly about it if it's young people being executed. And the kids who shot people at Columbine High were still young. I do think it's a shame and sad that my friend was met with such strong opposition when presenting her research and opinion because I hate how primitive our society is. I think it's sad that so many of our citizens are so narrow-minded and conventional to a degree that is horrifying. Whether you like it or not, Lux and others will tell you that we're the only supposedly "progressive" country that has not abolished the death penalty. The only thing worse than that to me is the idea that we could execute minors. It's hard for me to tolerate such a notion.

And, as Danny said, it's quite a laughing matter. :rolleyes:

I know there tons of other possibly more progressive societies, but in the case of the death penalty I really don't care how much more progressive other countries are.

[gldstwmn]

I don't think it's sad she was met with oppostion. What's wrong with killing two 16 year olds who did a school shooting.

Well, we never had to face that did we? They did it themselves.

[gldstwmn]

you people act like this is a bunch of little children being executed or something. Think columbine kids if they hadn't already executed themselves :laugh:

And you obviously don't know the whole story... :distress:

[gldstwmn]

And the kids who shot people at Columbine High were still young.
Not to mention they were picked on and harassed constantly by the jocks and the "cool kids" while the principal and administration sat idly by and did nothing. Who was it that was condoning cliques in another thread? If you mercilessly harass and embarass someone who you think is emotionally or physically weaker than you, do not be surprised if they retaliate. Do not be surprised at the level of their retaliation.
Oh and before anyone comes back with a response...my brother worked for Jeffco schools for 25 years and my daughter attended them k-8. I also knew the first two paramedics on the scene and watched friends on the SWAT team march into the school live on television.
Believe me, we discussed it in one way or another later on. It was horrific, all the way around.

[gldstwmn]

I said how can you not want the columbine kids executed and then I thought it was funny that they executed themselves first.

Yeah. The mentally ill and depressed are ****ing hilarious.

[gldstwmn]

I know there tons of other possibly more progressive societies, but in the case of the death penalty I really don't care how much more progressive other countries are.

Then perhaps you could consider moving to say, Saudi Arabia. They fall into line with your beliefs much better.
Of course if you choose to stay here, you'll just have to deal. Because we are progressing.

[gldstwmn]

I don't see anything funny nor ironic about those kids killing themselves. I don't care what their crime is, execution is never funny. I still struggle to see how anyone who supports the death penalty can maintain disgust at crimes of murder. To support the death penalty is to support murder and maybe this is too black and white but in my mind that disqualifies you of the right to be disgusted at the initial act. There is no way those boys should have been executed. Their crime was such a terrible act and the last response to it should be murder. Governments should not stoop as low as the murderers they're condemning.

Anyway, we've discussed this before but the main point here is that those boys' suicides is so far from funny that it really doesn't do your case any good to present it as such.

It's a fact that one of them was completely dosed on Prozac.

[gldstwmn]

Was that discovered? I had never heard that. Well ****. I suffered for what seemed like eternity on Paxil and often had to be physically controlled and prevented from damaging things. I know my boyfriend had a good re-think of things when I tried to throw his computer out the window. I can't say that I was ever on the verge of going that far but it can't be understated, the very real damages of those kinds of medication. I shudder to think that this would not be taken into consideration, among many other factors. Execution? My god.

Yup. :nod: Anything that involves the neuropathic transmitters in the brain should not be taken lightly. And I know it has helped many people and harmed many others.
One child's toxicology report was completely sealed. The other was on Luvox.

[GateandGarden]

Yeah. The mentally ill and depressed are ****ing hilarious.Exactly.

I don't see anything funny nor ironic about those kids killing themselves. I don't care what their crime is, execution is never funny. I still struggle to see how anyone who supports the death penalty can maintain disgust at crimes of murder. To support the death penalty is to support murder and maybe this is too black and white but in my mind that disqualifies you of the right to be disgusted at the initial act. There is no way those boys should have been executed. Their crime was such a terrible act and the last response to it should be murder. Governments should not stoop as low as the murderers they're condemning.

Anyway, we've discussed this before but the main point here is that those boys' suicides is so far from funny that it really doesn't do your case any good to present it as such.Yes, it's hard for me to understand, too.

Okay, I have something else that's related to this very thing on my mind for the moment. Y'all will have to take it from there because I have to run to class, but it seems that a lot of people on here have zero respect for people who are pro-death penalty. Lux just said that she feels someone doesn't have the right to be disgusted at the initial act of murder if he or she supports the death penalty. Now, my question is, what if Nancy came on here and refuted that, saying that she strongly disagrees and is for the death penalty but against murder, how would y'all react? Would y'all be respectful toward her as y'all always seem to be, or would you be honest and repeat what you've already said? It seems to me that you've condemned her (and others who are for capital punishment) for believing that way. The whole thing seems hypocritcal to me because y'all act like you do respect her and consider her a conservative worth talking to, yet many of you ridicule and denounce conservatives as a whole when you don't have to deal with her in a thread. Maybe it's easy for me to step back from this and look at it because this issue might not be as personal as the gay rights issue for me or very many others. It's very easy for me to say that I don't tolerate people being against me getting married or generally have equality because those people refuse to tolerate me first. If they're not going to put up with me in the least, why should I put up with them? As one of my English teachers once said, turning the other cheek just to get that one slapped as well is never really beneficial. But I'm trying to look at capital punishment and the basic idea of being respectful of other's opinions as long as it's not a matter of them trying to run your own life for you in a philosophical way. And this is not an attack on any of you in the least. I'm just throwing this out and I want to see what y'all have to say whenever I get back to a computer today. It's just something I wanted to discuss.

[SuzeQuze]

Yeah. The mentally ill and depressed are ****ing hilarious.

I <3 you. :xoxo: I'm sorry you and your friends were so close to this. :distress:

The two girls from my class who were most picked on are both dead. One from suicide at 16 because of a love triangle and the other of an accident in her early 20s, she was driving extremely recklessly and hit a boulder. Kids should really be taught not to pick on others. They say kids are mean, but they really learn this behavior from their parents. They're the real meanies.

I was picked on as a kid and I know first hand how damaging it is. In no way does this excuse what these boys did but it adds to just how unfunny the incident was.

[strandinthewind]

I <3 you. :xoxo: I'm sorry you and your friends were so close to this. :distress:

The two girls from my class who were most picked on are both dead. One from suicide at 16 because of a love triangle and the other of an accident in her early 20s, she was driving extremely recklessly and hit a boulder. Kids should really be taught not to pick on others. They say kids are mean, but they really learn this behavior from their parents. They're the real meanies.

I was picked on as a kid and I know first hand how damaging it is. In no way does this excuse what these boys did but it adds to just how unfunny the incident was.

I realize the authorities cannot always catch it when it happens,but I think the authorities in the schools somethimes turn the other way when it happens and do not slam the bullies. I base this on personal experience. In fact, I saw some teachers actually validating it or supporting it - not fighting, just general guff, which can hurt more. I am certainly not saying all teachers are like this. I am just basing this on personal experience.

I also think some parents like it when their kid is "cock of the walk." So, they support that "my country beehive hair is bigger than your's" attitude.

[SuzeQuze]

I realize the authorities cannot always catch it when it happens,but I think the authorities in the schools somethimes turn the other way when it happens and do not slam the bullies. I base this on personal experience. In fact, I saw some teachers actually validating it or supporting it - not fighting, just general guff, which can hurt more. I am certainly not saying all teachers are like this. I am just basing this on personal experience.

I also think some parents like it when their kid is "cock of the walk." So, they support that "my country beehive hair is bigger than your's" attitude.

You're right, this does happen. The popularity contest does not end in high school. It begins there.

[dissention]

Exactly.

Yes, it's hard for me to understand, too.

Okay, I have something else that's related to this very thing on my mind for the moment. Y'all will have to take it from there because I have to run to class, but it seems that a lot of people on here have zero respect for people who are pro-death penalty. Lux just said that she feels someone doesn't have the right to be disgusted at the initial act of murder if he or she supports the death penalty. Now, my question is, what if Nancy came on here and refuted that, saying that she strongly disagrees and is for the death penalty but against murder, how would y'all react? Would y'all be respectful toward her as y'all always seem to be, or would you be honest and repeat what you've already said? It seems to me that you've condemned her (and others who are for capital punishment) for believing that way. The whole thing seems hypocritcal to me because y'all act like you do respect her and consider her a conservative worth talking to, yet many of you ridicule and denounce conservatives as a whole when you don't have to deal with her in a thread. Maybe it's easy for me to step back from this and look at it because this issue might not be as personal as the gay rights issue for me or very many others. It's very easy for me to say that I don't tolerate people being against me getting married or generally have equality because those people refuse to tolerate me first. If they're not going to put up with me in the least, why should I put up with them? As one of my English teachers once said, turning the other cheek just to get that one slapped as well is never really beneficial. But I'm trying to look at capital punishment and the basic idea of being respectful of other's opinions as long as it's not a matter of them trying to run your own life for you in a philosophical way. And this is not an attack on any of you in the least. I'm just throwing this out and I want to see what y'all have to say whenever I get back to a computer today. It's just something I wanted to discuss.

You'll have to forgive me, Hillary, but I find it very difficult to respect the opinion people hold of actually supporting the termination of another human being's life. I, personally, don't think that particular opinion warrants any respect from me and it never will.

Unfortunately, support of the death penalty is, in itself, hypocrisy. What kind of message is being sent to society that it's wrong for someone to take the life of another, yet the government can do it? Gimme a bloody break. It's sickening and only shows how we haven't grown as a society.

[strandinthewind]

You'll have to forgive me, Hillary, but I find it very difficult to respect the opinion people hold of actually supporting the termination of another human being's life. I, personally, don't think that particular opinion warrants any respect from me and it never will.

Unfortunately, support of the death penalty is, in itself, hypocrisy. What kind of message is being sent to society that it's wrong for someone to take the life of another, yet the government can do it? Gimme a bloody break. It's sickening and only shows how we haven't grown as a society.

I do not think anyone is arguing that people should not zealously support their positions. I think the point is that everyone around here at one time or another and others far more often than others, are just downright rude when someone expresses an opinion. A hypothetical example of what I am talking about is this exchange:

I think the DP is warranted and I support it because if someone killed my kid, I would want them dead. That may be wrong to some, but it is how I feel and the law supports me.

the rude response:

You are a sick freak. Murder is muder and you will never be right no matter what your assinine reasoning is - so shut up and how dare you call yourself a Christian when what you are is a MURDERER :mad:

the polite response:

I see where you are coming from, but I cannot agree because I think it is wrong to take someone else's life no matter how heinous a crime they committed. :)

I think alot of the venom comes from people, myself included, thinking they are going to change someone's mind and then when they do not the polite way, the smugness and the snarkiness comes forward. I know I try to keep it in check, but I fail sometimes. So, I guess all we can do is try to be careful in our posts if we do not want to be rude. I think that is what Hillary is saying.

[amber]

Exactly.

Yes, it's hard for me to understand, too.

Okay, I have something else that's related to this very thing on my mind for the moment. Y'all will have to take it from there because I have to run to class, but it seems that a lot of people on here have zero respect for people who are pro-death penalty. Lux just said that she feels someone doesn't have the right to be disgusted at the initial act of murder if he or she supports the death penalty. Now, my question is, what if Nancy came on here and refuted that, saying that she strongly disagrees and is for the death penalty but against murder, how would y'all react? Would y'all be respectful toward her as y'all always seem to be, or would you be honest and repeat what you've already said? It seems to me that you've condemned her (and others who are for capital punishment) for believing that way. The whole thing seems hypocritcal to me because y'all act like you do respect her and consider her a conservative worth talking to, yet many of you ridicule and denounce conservatives as a whole when you don't have to deal with her in a thread. Maybe it's easy for me to step back from this and look at it because this issue might not be as personal as the gay rights issue for me or very many others. It's very easy for me to say that I don't tolerate people being against me getting married or generally have equality because those people refuse to tolerate me first. If they're not going to put up with me in the least, why should I put up with them? As one of my English teachers once said, turning the other cheek just to get that one slapped as well is never really beneficial. But I'm trying to look at capital punishment and the basic idea of being respectful of other's opinions as long as it's not a matter of them trying to run your own life for you in a philosophical way. And this is not an attack on any of you in the least. I'm just throwing this out and I want to see what y'all have to say whenever I get back to a computer today. It's just something I wanted to discuss.
I can't address your whole statement, but I have noticed a difference in the treatment of Nancy as compared to other conservatives who have the same beliefs (by myself, too). Nancy usually present her arguments in a very logical way, probably that is the reason, but essentially they do come down to the same beliefs. :shrug:

[dissention]

I can't address your whole statement, but I have noticed a difference in the treatment of Nancy as compared to other conservatives who have the same beliefs (by myself, too). Nancy usually present her arguments in a very logical way, probably that is the reason, but essentially they do come down to the same beliefs. :shrug:

The difference between Nancy and someone like Brown Eyes is that Nancy doesn't call people baby killers and try to pass off Ann Coulter as the bearer of truth. As much I vehemently disagree with her views, she gets points for not being a sheer loon. :o

[dissention]

I do not think anyone is arguing that people should not zealously support their positions. I think the point is that everyone around here at one time or another and others far more often than others, are just downright rude when someone expresses an opinion. A hypothetical example of what I am talking about is this exchange:

I think the DP is warranted and I support it because if someone killed my kid, I would want them dead. That may be wrong to some, but it is how I feel and the law supports me.

the rude response:

You are a sick freak. Murder is muder and you will never be right no matter what your assinine reasoning is - so shut up and how dare you call yourself a Christian when what you are is a MURDERER :mad:

the polite response:

I see where you are coming from, but I cannot agree because I think it is wrong to take someone else's life no matter how heinous a crime they committed. :)

I think alot of the venom comes from people, myself included, thinking they are going to change someone's mind and then when they do not the polite way, the smugness and the snarkiness comes forward. I know I try to keep it in check, but I fail sometimes. So, I guess all we can do is try to be careful in our posts if we do not want to be rude. I think that is what Hillary is saying.

Jason, Hillary brought up the issue of some having zero respect for people who are pro-death penalty. My post was in response to that and why I don't respect those pro-death penalty opinions. ;) That's all.

[strandinthewind]

Jason, Hillary brought up the issue of some having zero respect for people who are pro-death penalty. My post was in response to that and why I don't respect those pro-death penalty opinions. ;) That's all.

I know - but I was referring to the broader intent of her post that people around here, including myself on occasion, take a cheap shot. It is hard not to do when you feel passionately about something.

[strandinthewind]

The difference between Nancy and someone like Brown Eyes is that Nancy doesn't call people baby killers and try to pass off Ann Coulter as the bearer of truth. As much I vehemently disagree with her views, she gets points for not being a sheer loon. :o

EXACTLY - Nancy respects other people's opinions though she may disagree with them. She will call someone out when the facts do not support them, but it rarely is with venom.

[amber]

The difference between Nancy and someone like Brown Eyes is that Nancy doesn't call people baby killers and try to pass off Ann Coulter as the bearer of truth. As much I vehemently disagree with her views, she gets points for not being a sheer loon. :o
Yes, I know why, I feel the same. But is it fair? I dunno.

[dissention]

Yes, I know why, I feel the same. But is it fair? I dunno.

Is it fair that I have more respect for someone who doesn't call me a baby killer than for someone who does? I think so. :)

[amber]

Is it fair that I have more respect for someone who doesn't call me a baby killer than for someone who does? I think so. :)
I meant people who don't insult you directly. :shrug:

[ontheEdgeof17]

I meant people who don't insult you directly. :shrug:


I think if you think it, you might as well say it. Why be fake?


Note: Not directed at Nancy. A general comment. :wavey:

[dissention]

I meant people who don't insult you directly. :shrug:

Well, I don't have respect for the Republican party, so I'd be an absolute liar to say that I have respect for Republicans. I respect them as human beings, but I don't respect their political beliefs, as harsh as it may sound. But if I'm being honest. :laugh:

[amber]

I think if you think it, you might as well say it. Why be fake?


Note: Not directed at Nancy. A general comment. :wavey:
I think so too, but you don't necessarily have to say it by calling names, at least not really bad ones, :laugh: is my theory. I dunno - whatev. :shrug:

[amber]

Well, I don't have respect for the Republican party, so I'd be an absolute liar to say that I have respect for Republicans. I respect them as human beings, but I don't respect their political beliefs, as harsh as it may sound. But if I'm being honest. :laugh:
I know. I guess I was thinking more of name calling and such. But i don't really care that much, right this second, so.

[dissention]

I know. I guess I was thinking more of name calling and such. But i don't really care that much, right this second, so.

Well, I guess it's a Catch 22. You don't want to lump all Republicans together when you say something like "Republicans are scum" because there are those that I do have respect for like Olympia Snowe, but on the other hand, what they stand for makes me think of them as scum and I say it often. :laugh:

[GateandGarden]

Well, I don't have respect for the Republican party, so I'd be an absolute liar to say that I have respect for Republicans. I respect them as human beings, but I don't respect their political beliefs, as harsh as it may sound. But if I'm being honest. :laugh:Okay, I wrote up this big long thing responding to many things that were said and I really wish it hadn't just disappeared because I wanted to see what y'all would say about it. Since I (unfortunately) don't have time to retype it, I'll just ask a few questions that I asked in it. When is it "okay" to disrespect the person and not just the opinion? I feel that I don't respect people who want to deny me the rights, privileges, and benefits that others are granted because that person obviously does not respect me and consciously or unconsciously, thinks him or herself to be better than me. Is this okay? I am expected to just disrespect a person's opinion on this but not the person him or herself? Is a black person supposed to respect a white supremicist? (Sorry for the awful spelling there). Why should it be any different for a gay person? Curtis said in this thread that we shouldn't be fake. I feel that I'm a very honest person and don't wear masks unless it's absolutely necessary. So, should I be so bold as to say that I have no respect for people because of their opinions about gays (ME!) and what rights they should or should not have? That is a personal attack on me; I don't see how it can be viewed any other way. Is it okay to have such feelings about someone else and express them if it is done in a respectful and not a rude manner? Is it all in the presentation?

Okay, okay--I have to stop. I practically did rewrite the whole damn thing. :laugh:

What do y'all think?

[GateandGarden]

Well, I guess it's a Catch 22. You don't want to lump all Republicans together when you say something like "Republicans are scum" because there are those that I do have respect for like Olympia Snowe, but on the other hand, what they stand for makes me think of them as scum and I say it often. :laugh:Well, you disagree with a lot of Nancy's viewpoints. Y'all probably disagree on everything political. But I'm guessing you don't think of her as scum because of what she stands for.

[HomerMcvie]

Referencing the case of the woman being tied up, and thrown from a bridge to her death by drowning-
How would ya'all feel about this, if this victim was your mother, or sister, or friend? In a case like this, I have NO problem putting these coldhearted, premeditated!!!!, scumbags down.
Rehabilitation? No thanks.

[strandinthewind]

. . . although it's never been like Jason would have you think, "sick murdering f*ck" etc etc.

I was using exaggeration for emphasis in a hypothetical situation - I was not referring to anyone in particular :cool:

[GateandGarden]

Referencing the case of the woman being tied up, and thrown from a bridge to her death by drowning-
How would ya'all feel about this, if this victim was your mother, or sister, or friend? In a case like this, I have NO problem putting these coldhearted, premeditated!!!!, scumbags down.
Rehabilitation? No thanks.Regardless of the brutality of the crime, I still do not feel that it is my right or any other human's to take the life of another when it is not a matter of self-defense. And it also doesn't bring that woman back to life. That's how I feel about it.

[dissention]

Well, you disagree with a lot of Nancy's viewpoints. Y'all probably disagree on everything political. But I'm guessing you don't think of her as scum because of what she stands for.

Well, you'd be right. I may find her political opinions scummy, but I don't find her to be. She's respectful and doesn't put on any airs. Regardless of her beliefs and opinions, I have to respect her for that.

It's the fundies and right-wingers who call themselves "the heart of America" that I despise. It's the whack jobs that want to pump God into every possible thing that I despise. It's the people who vote Republican without knowing the issues that I despise. It's the politicians who attack liberals as being socialist pieces of **** while their own states have disgusting poverty levels that I despise. Nancy doesn't fall into any of those categories, no matter how vehemently I disagree with her.

[strandinthewind]

Well, you'd be right. I may find her political opinions scummy, but I don't find her to be. She's respectful and doesn't put on any airs. Regardless of her beliefs and opinions, I have to respect her for that.

It's the fundies and right-wingers who call themselves "the heart of America" that I despise. It's the whack jobs that want to pump God into every possible thing that I despise. It's the people who vote Republican without knowing the issues that I despise. It's the politicians who attack liberals as being socialist pieces of **** while their own states have disgusting poverty levels that I despise. Nancy doesn't fall into any of those categories, no matter how vehemently I disagree with her.

Ditto :woohoo:

[GateandGarden]

Well, you'd be right. I may find her political opinions scummy, but I don't find her to be. She's respectful and doesn't put on any airs. Regardless of her beliefs and opinions, I have to respect her for that.

It's the fundies and right-wingers who call themselves "the heart of America" that I despise. It's the whack jobs that want to pump God into every possible thing that I despise. It's the people who vote Republican without knowing the issues that I despise. It's the politicians who attack liberals as being socialist pieces of **** while their own states have disgusting poverty levels that I despise. Nancy doesn't fall into any of those categories, no matter how vehemently I disagree with her.Allright. I'm wondering how you feel about my other post, the longer one--#59.

[dissention]

Allright. I'm wondering how you feel about my other post, the longer one--#59.

I'm still thinking about it. :laugh:

I hate to say that it's ever okay to disrespect someone, but that simply isn't realistic and is only possible if you're not human. No one can go through life without showing others disrespect at some point, that's just reality.

[GateandGarden]

I'm still thinking about it. :laugh:

I hate to say that it's ever okay to disrespect someone, but that simply isn't realistic and is only possible if you're not human. No one can go through life without showing others disrespect at some point, that's just reality.Okay. So you understand my moral dilemma here. If you think of more to say on it, I'll be checking this thread. And that goes for anyone else who has an opinion about my ideas to confirm or criticize them or whatever.

Post #59...going once... :D

[dissention]

Okay. So you understand my moral dilemma here. If you think of more to say on it, I'll be checking this thread. And that goes for anyone else who has an opinion about my ideas to confirm or criticize them or whatever.

Post #59...going once... :D

On one hand, I'd love to say that I'd be the bigger person if someone showed me such utter disrespect, but c'mon, this is me. :laugh: I have no desire to show anyone respect who disrespects me, so I understand exactly where you're coming from.

[strandinthewind]

To change the subject and add even more fire to this, I though Scalia had a point when in his dessent he said that the Court's reasoning that the DP should not apply to minors because they do not have the same mental and emotional capacity as an adult was specious because that same part of the Court clearly feels a minor can make the decision of whether to have an abortion without parental consent.

Here is an excerpt (emphasis supplied):

"[M]ethodological and other errors can affect the reliability and validity of estimates about the opinions and attitudes of a population derived from various sampling techniques. Everything from variations in the survey methodology, such as the choice of the target population, the sampling design used, the questions asked, and the statistical analyses used to interpret the data can skew the results." Atkins, supra, at 326-327 (dissenting opinion) (citing R. Groves, Survey Errors and Survey Costs (1989); 1 C. Turner & E. Martin, Surveying Subjective Phenomena (1984)).
In other words, all the Court has done today, to borrow from another context, is to look over the heads of the crowd and pick out its friends. Cf. Conroy v. Aniskoff, 507 U.S. 511, 519, 113 S.Ct. 1562, 123 L.Ed.2d 229 (1993) (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment).

We need not look far to find studies contradicting the Court's conclusions. As petitioner points out, the American Psychological Association (APA), which claims in this case that scientific evidence shows persons under 18 lack the ability to take moral responsibility for their decisions, has previously taken precisely the opposite position before this very Court. In its brief in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417, 110 S.Ct. 2926, 111 L.Ed.2d 344 (1990), the APA found a "rich body of research" showing that juveniles are mature enough to decide whether to obtain an abortion without parental involvement. Brief for APA as Amicus Curiae, O.T.1989, No. 88-805 etc., p. 18. The APA brief, citing psychology treatises and studies too numerous to list here, asserted: "[B]y middle adolescence (age 14-15) young people develop abilities similar to adults in reasoning about moral dilemmas, understanding social rules and laws, [and] reasoning about interpersonal relationships and interpersonal problems." Id., at 19-20 (citations omitted). Given the nuances of scientific methodology and conflicting views, courts--which can only consider the limited evidence on the record before them--are ill equipped to determine which view of science is the right one. Legislatures "are better qualified to weigh and 'evaluate the results of statistical studies in terms of their own local conditions and with a flexibility of approach that is not available to the courts.' " McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 319, 107 S.Ct. 1756, 95 L.Ed.2d 262 (1987) (quoting Gregg, supra, at 186).

Even putting aside questions of methodology, the studies cited by the Court offer scant support for a categorical prohibition of the death penalty for murderers under 18. At most, these studies conclude that, on average, or in most cases, persons under 18 are unable to take moral responsibility for their actions. Not one of the cited studies opines that all individuals under 18 are unable to appreciate the nature of their crimes.
________________________________________________

Personally, I think that if we are to have the DP (which is a sep. argument) - then it should be a case by case determination as to whether the minor knew enough to know what his actions were. In the case sub judice, they clearly did and, if we are going to have it, I cannot think of a more appropriate candidate for the DP. They plotted it and then bragged about it. How can that be anything but knowing exactly what they were doing :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

On one hand, I'd love to say that I'd be the bigger person if someone showed me such utter disrespect, but c'mon, this is me. :laugh: I have no desire to show anyone respect who disrespects me, so I understand exactly where you're coming from.


black & white :wavey: better example though :p

But, I agree with you . I know so many people who accept untruth as fact, esp. regarding the current administration. Then, when they are called on it in a polite way, they resort to name calling. I guess I should just walk away then, but that is hard to do because it is a street fight then.

[GateandGarden]

On one hand, I'd love to say that I'd be the bigger person if someone showed me such utter disrespect, but c'mon, this is me. :laugh: I have no desire to show anyone respect who disrespects me, so I understand exactly where you're coming from.Do you think that Brown Eyes has respected me as a gay person on this board?

[strandinthewind]

Plus, I think people see people like Diss and myself get into it and call each other horrible names and think that is the norm. I can assure you that 99.9% of the time we are really just ragging each other.

[GateandGarden]

Plus, I think people see people like Diss and myself get into it and call each other horrible names and think that is the norm. I can assure you that 99.9% of the time we are really just ragging each other.Oh, of course. I know y'all are just playing. Some of us aren't, though. I've said some unkind things that I actually did mean, despite the fact that they were really not nice at all. Lots of needless stress. I'd hate to go back and look at all the posts I addressed to Brown Eyes when he initally joined the board.

[strandinthewind]

Oh, of course. I know y'all are just playing. Some of us aren't, though. I've said some unkind things that I actually did mean, despite the fact that they were really not nice at all. Lots of needless stress. I'd hate to go back and look at all the posts I addressed to Brown Eyes when he initally joined the board.


I say the same about me. I really do try and keep it under wraps and be polite instead of rude - thus taking IMO the higher road. But, it is hard when somwone openly disparages you in an insulting manner. The great Nancy once said in refernence to a bruhaha on her board something like getting the last word in a snarky manner is not winning.

[GateandGarden]

I say the same about me. I really do try and keep it under wraps and be polite instead of rude - thus taking IMO the higher road. But, it is hard when somwone openly disparages you in an insulting manner. The great Nancy once said in refernence to a bruhaha on her board something like getting the last word in a snarky manner is not winning.Hm. I do think that's what she did when we had our spat on her board that caused me to leave it permanently.

And, as I've suggested, perhaps you can, in a sense, still take the higher road by expressing your disrespect for someone in a way that is matter-of-fact and not spiteful. I don't know. The question is...is it okay to disrespect someone as a person if your feelings are presented in a polite manner.

[dissention]

Do you think that Brown Eyes has respected me as a gay person on this board?

I don't think anyone who wants gay marriage banned is respectful towards gay men and women, so...

[GateandGarden]

I don't think anyone who wants gay marriage banned is respectful towards gay men and women, so...Okay, I'm inclined to agree with you wholeheartedly, but this goes back to something touched on earlier. I do believe that Nancy is opposed to gay marriage, so... :shrug: (And this isn't all about Nancy, since there have been others, on here and in my "real" life, but she is an example).

[dissention]

Hm. I do think that's what she did when we had our spat on her board that caused me to leave it permanently.

And, as I've suggested, perhaps you can, in a sense, still take the higher road by expressing your disrespect for someone in a way that is matter-of-fact and not spiteful. I don't know. The question is...is it okay to disrespect someone as a person if your feelings are presented in a polite manner.

Feelings and actions of disrespect depend entirely on the person and the situation. I can be quite disrespectful, I'd never attempt to say otherwise. There are times when people get on my goat so much that I actively try to disrespect them. Take religious people, for example. I have such a disdain for religion that when people talk to me about it or tell them how they'll pray to God for this or that, sometimes I'll take glee in offending them. But I'm only human and I'm not perfect. We all have things that get on our tits and we'd all be miserable if we never spoke up.

[dissention]

Okay, I'm inclined to agree with you wholeheartedly, but this goes back to something touched on earlier. I do believe that Nancy is opposed to gay marriage, so... :shrug: (And this isn't all about Nancy, since there have been others, on here and in my "real" life, but she is an example).

If I remember correctly, she doesn't approve of gay marriage but she doesn't support an amendment to ban it, either.

I could care less who the person is, once you start to approve of discrimination and taking someone's rights away, you become disrespectful.

[GateandGarden]

If I remember correctly, she doesn't approve of gay marriage but she doesn't support an amendment to ban it, either.

I could care less who the person is, once you start to approve of discrimination and taking someone's rights away, you become disrespectful.Isn't the opposition to gay marriage disrespect in itself as well?

[dissention]

Isn't the opposition to gay marriage disrespect in itself as well?

I think so, but I'll take that over actively supporting a ban on them.

[The Tower]

To change the subject and add even more fire to this, I though Scalia had a point when in his dessent he said that the Court's reasoning that the DP should not apply to minors because they do not have the same mental and emotional capacity as an adult was specious because that same part of the Court clearly feels a minor can make the decision of whether to have an abortion without parental consent.
Sorry, Jason.... the two have nothing to do with each other (apples to oranges).

The emphasis of the death penalty judgement is about how the punishment is relative to the culpability of someone under 18. What Kennedy is saying is that, even though the crime is horrific, the fact that you are under 18 mitigates the ability to truly know all the hard consequences of one's actions. So, instead of the death penalty the perpetrator of the crime would life in prison with no chance of parole or some other punishment.

This concept has nothing to do with whether or not a pregnant teen should be able to get an abortion without parental consent.

[GateandGarden]

I think so, but I'll take that over actively supporting a ban on them.But, I'm thinking that even though something is the lesser of two evils, it's still evil, right? :shrug:

[The Tower]

Isn't the opposition to gay marriage disrespect in itself as well?

No. Believing that it's wrong (for whatever reason) is one thing- actively involving oneself in the prohibition of it is another. That's what tolerance (vs. acceptance) is all about.

[GateandGarden]

No. Believing that it's wrong (for whatever reason) is one thing- actively involving oneself in the prohibition of it is another. That's what tolerance (vs. acceptance) is all about.So, you're saying that I should settle for tolerance because acceptance is probably too much to ask for? (Sorry to be putting words in your mouth. :o )

I always say that tolerance is not enough for me, and shouldn't be enough for fellow gays and other minorities. I want acceptance and understanding.

[DrummerDeanna]

Isn't the opposition to gay marriage disrespect in itself as well?

I'm going to chime in here :D

I don't think the opposition in itself is disrespectful. There are still people who believe that marriage is a completely religious and traditional thing - and they just want it left the way it is....perhaps out of ignorance yes, perhaps out of stubbornness - and some people even out of hatred.....BUT I know like my grandma - she doesn't hate gay people, doesn't disrespect them - but doesn't feel as though they should get "married"

My sister feels the same way, though she supports civil unions....and a marriage as long as it isn't actually labeled "marriage" I don't get it - but it apparently makes sense to her - and she's doesn't hate or dislike gay people - she's always supported me and my friends...

I also know gay people who oppose gay marriage so :shrug:

[DrummerDeanna]

No. Believing that it's wrong (for whatever reason) is one thing- actively involving oneself in the prohibition of it is another. That's what tolerance (vs. acceptance) is all about.

I think that's generally what I was trying to say :p ....the actual BANNING of gay marriage, say in the constitution, equal disrespect....but well yeah - what Tower said :laugh:

[GateandGarden]

I'm going to chime in here :D

I don't think the opposition in itself is disrespectful. There are still people who believe that marriage is a completely religious and traditional thing - and they just want it left the way it is....perhaps out of ignorance yes, perhaps out of stubbornness - and some people even out of hatred.....BUT I know like my grandma - she doesn't hate gay people, doesn't disrespect them - but doesn't feel as though they should get "married"

My sister feels the same way, though she supports civil unions....and a marriage as long as it isn't actually labeled "marriage" I don't get it - but it apparently makes sense to her - and she's doesn't hate or dislike gay people - she's always supported me and my friends...I think that these people are being disrespectful of gays in an unconscious way, either because of ignorance or stubborness or reluctance to admit to themselves that they are being disrespectful.
I also know gay people who oppose gay marriage so :shrug:I think those people are a whole 'nother story. It's different when you support denying your fellow minorities the same rights as others. It's nonsenical to me. :shrug:

[dissention]

But, I'm thinking that even though something is the lesser of two evils, it's still evil, right? :shrug:

Of course. Just look at George W. Bush vs. John Kerry. :o

Like racism, gay discrimination is always going to exist. It doesn't help when you have political leaders comparing gay relationships to beastiality, but we live in a country where people believe such things. We also live in a country where dominant religious beliefs are passed off on pretty much everyone, regardless of how you personally feel. I know I'm not happy that my tax money goes to fund faith-based initiatives in churches that are run by scumbags, but such is life. So, if we have bigots and religious fundies running the joint, I'll take someone who doesn't agree with gay marriage instead of someone who disagrees with gay marriage and actively tries to prevent it.

[strandinthewind]

Isn't the opposition to gay marriage disrespect in itself as well?


In my case no. I oppose the govt. sanctioning any kind of marriage whatsoever. The word married and spouse should be in no law.

But, that will never happen. so I am for gay or any other kind of marriage.

[GateandGarden]

Sorry that I'm engaging y'all in this and can't stick around with any consistency to particpiate, but I have to run to class. I thank all of you for your input.

[ontheEdgeof17]

I'll take someone who doesn't agree with gay marriage instead of someone who disagrees with gay marriage and actively tries to prevent it.


Voting against it is an active form of prevention. Yes?

[strandinthewind]

Sorry, Jason.... the two have nothing to do with each other (apples to oranges).

The emphasis of the death penalty judgement is about how the punishment is relative to the culpability of someone under 18. What Kennedy is saying is that, even though the crime is horrific, the fact that you are under 18 mitigates the ability to truly know all the hard consequences of one's actions. So, instead of the death penalty the perpetrator of the crime would life in prison with no chance of parole or some other punishment.

This concept has nothing to do with whether or not a pregnant teen should be able to get an abortion without parental consent.

Well, they do in the sense that if we assume all teens cannot understand the ramifications of what they are doing, then that should be applied evenly. It is possible that that teen that is not able to understand the ramifications of things will later regret her decision and think she committed murder, which is her choice and why it is called pro choice :shrug: Then again, I am for parental consent with a judicial escape hatch for this same reason.

In any event, I think they are related but I still oppose the DP for minors.

[dissention]

Voting against it is an active form of prevention. Yes?

I would think so. :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

. . . I want acceptance and understanding.


With all due respect, in all aspects of your life you will never really have that from the generic everyone :shrug:

[ontheEdgeof17]

I would think so. :shrug:


I was just saying that you don't know how ppl vote so it's hard to say who is active towards it and who is not.

[strandinthewind]

Of course. Just look at George W. Bush vs. John Kerry. :o

Like racism, gay discrimination is always going to exist. It doesn't help when you have political leaders comparing gay relationships to beastiality, but we live in a country where people believe such things. We also live in a country where dominant religious beliefs are passed off on pretty much everyone, regardless of how you personally feel. I know I'm not happy that my tax money goes to fund faith-based initiatives in churches that are run by scumbags, but such is life. So, if we have bigots and religious fundies running the joint, I'll take someone who doesn't agree with gay marriage instead of someone who disagrees with gay marriage and actively tries to prevent it.


I agree - hypothetically, if I think abortion is wrong and it is the taking of a life but realize that that is my opinion and it should not be thrust on any pregnant woman (hence pro choice) - I would not be happy that my tax dollars go to fund abortions. Yet, I have to realize that such is life. Pro-choice people will take everyone being like this as opposed to total non pro choice.

[dissention]

I was just saying that you don't know how ppl vote so it's hard to say who is active towards it and who is not.

I never asserted that I did. I simply said that I'll take the people who disagree with it but don't actively try to prevent it over the people who disagree with it and do try to prevent.

[The Tower]

Well, they do in the sense that if we assume all teens cannot understand the ramifications of what they are doing, then that should be applied evenly. It is possible that that teen that is not able to understand the ramifications of things will later regret her decision and think she committed murder, which is her choice and why it is called pro choice :shrug: Then again, I am for parental consent with a judicial escape hatch for this same reason.

In any event, I think they are related but I still oppose the DP for minors.
Any woman who gets abortion is going to have to live with the possibility of regretting it, regardless of her age. However, the decision regarding the abortion is directly related to the life of the mother- not the mother's parents, or anyone else for that matter. If a pregnant teen thinks that her life will be ruined from an unwanted pregnancy, no one should be able to stop her. Just because her parents may disagree is meaningless- they're not going to be forced to care for the kid.

Again- this has nothing to do with the idea that punishment should be restrained with regard to young people who may not be able to understand the ramifications of their actions.

[ontheEdgeof17]

I never asserted that I did. I simply said that I'll take the people who disagree with it but don't actively try to prevent it over the people who disagree with it and do try to prevent.


I see what you are saying.

I just think it is an impossible thing to do, if that would every arise. I can't see people who oppose homosexuality to vote 'yes' to gay marriage. Everyone has a voice at the polls and they are actively preventing it.....unless they don't vote, in which leads to what you are trying to say.

[DrummerDeanna]

I see what you are saying.

I just think it is an impossible thing to do, if that would every arise. I can't see people who oppose homosexuality to vote 'yes' to gay marriage. Everyone has a voice at the polls and they are actively preventing it.....unless they don't vote, in which leads to what you are trying to say.

Whoa - I just noticed that the motion Stevie is making in your avatar...well it's a little...um....well - haha....just watch it ;) I like. I like ;) :laugh:


--------

Back to the topic - I agree with Jason - that you're never ever going to get full and complete acceptance and understanding from everyone - I mean there are still people who think that inter-racial marriage is a sin :eek:

[SuzeQuze]

Ditto :woohoo:

Jumping on this bandwagon. :woohoo:

[ontheEdgeof17]

Whoa - I just noticed that the motion Stevie is making in your avatar...well it's a little...um....well - haha....just watch it ;) I like. I like ;) :laugh:



Oh my. I've never noticed. :o

Stevie, you hooch! ;)

[DrummerDeanna]

Oh my. I've never noticed. :o

Stevie, you hooch! ;)

I never noticed either - so either Dissention and Ryan (and others) have totally begun to corrupt my mind....or I'm in an uncharacteristically dirty mood :p

[SuzeQuze]

Oh my. I've never noticed. :o

Stevie, you hooch! ;)

Me neither! Haha, that's great.

[GateandGarden]

With all due respect, in all aspects of your life you will never really have that from the generic everyone :shrug:You're right about that. :( But, isn't it something that you would want to strive for from the people with which you associate in your life as opposed to total strangers?

[strandinthewind]

You're right about that. :( But, isn't it something that you would want to strive for from the people with which you associate in your life as opposed to total strangers?


I will sound like a 60 year old here, but - I used to strive for acceptance. I used to want people to reward me so to speak. But, in my 38 years on this rock, I have learned that only I can do that. Sure it is nice when others do it - everyone likes that. But, I like me a whole lot more and that is all the acceptance I need. I am not sure I am describing this correctly :laugh:

[dissention]

But, I like me a whole lot more and that is all the acceptance I need.

Sounds like you pilfered those statements from me. :lol:

[strandinthewind]

Sounds like you pilfered those statements from me. :lol:

Well, my acceptance of myself depends on your opinion of course :xoxo: :xoxo: :xoxo:

[dissention]

Well, my acceptance of myself depends on your opinion of course :xoxo: :xoxo: :xoxo:

Naturally. :laugh:

[DrummerDeanna]

I will sound like a 60 year old here, but - I used to strive for acceptance. I used to want people to reward me so to speak. But, in my 38 years on this rock, I have learned that only I can do that. Sure it is nice when others do it - everyone likes that. But, I like me a whole lot more and that is all the acceptance I need. I am not sure I am describing this correctly :laugh:


I totally agree here - it just doesn't work to strive for acceptance from everyone - all the time - you'll never be happy if that's what you're working for.

Sure- it would be nice if more people were accepting - but I don't know - I guess when it's all said and done all that matters is whether you're happy with yourself :o

[SuzeQuze]

You're right about that. :( But, isn't it something that you would want to strive for from the people with which you associate in your life as opposed to total strangers?

Yes. Hillary, be very choosy with who you allow in your life. If they are not accepting and understanding then they're out. Period. Jason is right, you cannot expect acceptance from all people, you can only give it to yourself. And some people, the good ones, will give it.

You've got to thicken your skin and let the bullsh*t roll off of you. Which is easy for me to say, I suppose. But, in a way I am qualified because I used to be very anxious and a general weirdo and had a lot of trouble with acceptance. I was paralyzed by what I thought people thought of me. Really, I was just projecting what I thought of myself onto these people. But I did eventually learn how to feel good about myself and associate only with people who were supportive.

You can get there. What other people think of you is irrelevant. It is what you think of yourself that is important.

[DrummerDeanna]

Yes. Hillary, be very choosy with who you allow in your life. If they are not accepting and understanding then they're out. Period. Jason is right, you cannot expect acceptance from all people, you can only give it to yourself. And some people, the good ones, will give it.

You've got to thicken your skin and let the bullsh*t roll off of you. Which is easy for me to say, I suppose. But, in a way I am qualified because I used to be very anxious and a general weirdo and had a lot of trouble with acceptance. I was paralyzed by what I thought people thought of me. Really, I was just projecting what I thought of myself onto these people. But I did eventually learn how to feel good about myself and associate only with people who were supportive.

You can get there. What other people think of you is irrelevant. It is what you think of yourself that is important.


Yet again someone says it better than I ever could :D

I used to have this friend who had very few friends, her reason was "why should I waste my time of people I don't really truly want to be around - my time is precious and I want to be with people I want to be around..." or something to that effect - I always thought she was being anti-social and bitchy - NOW I totally see her point of view and have employed that philosophy into my life.

Life's too short to sit around and fight with people about yourself trying to make them accept you - if they don't then send 'em packing....I've found that more open-minded and accepting people are just naturally better people :D

[SuzeQuze]

Yet again someone says it better than I ever could :D

I used to have this friend who had very few friends, her reason was "why should I waste my time of people I don't really truly want to be around - my time is precious and I want to be with people I want to be around..." or something to that effect - I always thought she was being anti-social and bitchy - NOW I totally see her point of view and have employed that philosophy into my life.

Life's too short to sit around and fight with people about yourself trying to make them accept you - if they don't then send 'em packing....I've found that more open-minded and accepting people are just naturally better people :D

:nod: Exactly. I'll take my own company over some jackass's who thinks poorly of me. And you're right about the open-minded people just being better company. They're nicer people. I was watching Oprah today and this 10 year old girl has cancer and when her hair fell out most of her friends fell by the wayside. But she retained three and they are her closest, best friends. They probably will be for a long time. The other ones, not worth a baby strand on her fine, new head of hair. :D

[wondergirl9847]

How should we curb murderers without the death penalty?

BTW, which country has the lowest amount of rapes/murders/violent crimes in the world? Anyone know off hand?

[amber]

Yet again someone says it better than I ever could :D

I used to have this friend who had very few friends, her reason was "why should I waste my time of people I don't really truly want to be around - my time is precious and I want to be with people I want to be around..." or something to that effect - I always thought she was being anti-social and bitchy - NOW I totally see her point of view and have employed that philosophy into my life.

That was me. :wavey: :laugh:
Amber "I'm bored, I gotta go" g.

[The Tower]

How should we curb murderers without the death penalty?
I don't think the death penalty is a deterrant to crime, so I'd consider your question moot.

[gldstwmn]

I will sound like a 60 year old here, but - I used to strive for acceptance. I used to want people to reward me so to speak. But, in my 38 years on this rock, I have learned that only I can do that. Sure it is nice when others do it - everyone likes that. But, I like me a whole lot more and that is all the acceptance I need. I am not sure I am describing this correctly :laugh:

Oh no, you got it. :nod:

[gldstwmn]

How should we curb murderers without the death penalty?

BTW, which country has the lowest amount of rapes/murders/violent crimes in the world? Anyone know off hand?

I think it's India.

[dissention]

How should we curb murderers without the death penalty?

The death penalty doesn't curb murderers to begin with; it's not a deterrent. :woohoo:

I think we should concentrate on what exactly occurs in our society to encourage such violent acts and do something about it. Maybe parents of 11 year old boys should not allow their kid to watch films such as Natural Born Killers.

[amber]

Deny them great cinema ::sniff:: I'm not an 11 year old boy, nor have I ever been one so I guess I can't see why that film would encourage violence. But perhaps these viewers can't see the irony in that. Film, it is very filmic.
I just think that if you see certain images over and over, like violence, it can desensitize you to it, especially at a younger age.

[amber]

Yes I realise that but he chose as an example, the one film famous for dealing with that exact issue.
oh, right, I got that. I just didn't pay attention.. :D

[GateandGarden]

Yes. Hillary, be very choosy with who you allow in your life. If they are not accepting and understanding then they're out. Period. Jason is right, you cannot expect acceptance from all people, you can only give it to yourself. And some people, the good ones, will give it.

You've got to thicken your skin and let the bullsh*t roll off of you. Which is easy for me to say, I suppose. But, in a way I am qualified because I used to be very anxious and a general weirdo and had a lot of trouble with acceptance. I was paralyzed by what I thought people thought of me. Really, I was just projecting what I thought of myself onto these people. But I did eventually learn how to feel good about myself and associate only with people who were supportive.

You can get there. What other people think of you is irrelevant. It is what you think of yourself that is important.Yes, I think you and Jason are right. I have a ways to go in many areas. I guess I just can't get past the fact that if I declare that someone's opinions of me and others are unacceptable to me and what that person stands for is also unacceptable, someone is going to crucify me for that. I feel that I'm justified when I make such an assertion, but I've been criticized for strong opinions again and again. Yet, when Lux expresses hers, it's like it's okay. (This is not a slam on you at all Lux). I just don't understand this.

Also, when I spoke of acceptance and understanding, I was also talking about others besides myself. I'm looking out for the whole GLBT community and saying that we should all be accepted and understood. We deserve that. We all need to believe in ourselves beforehand and know that we are just as good as the next person for ourselves, not because of what anyone else says, but at the same time, I think we need others.

[GateandGarden]

Yet again someone says it better than I ever could :D

I used to have this friend who had very few friends, her reason was "why should I waste my time of people I don't really truly want to be around - my time is precious and I want to be with people I want to be around..." or something to that effect - I always thought she was being anti-social and bitchy - NOW I totally see her point of view and have employed that philosophy into my life.

Life's too short to sit around and fight with people about yourself trying to make them accept you - if they don't then send 'em packing....I've found that more open-minded and accepting people are just naturally better people :DYes, I agree. And I do live my life in that way that your friend does. People comment on how few friends I have, relative to others, but they are very close friends. I choose wisely and I feel like I'm able to have deeper relationships with people because of that. But, the online world can be so different. I talk to quite a few more people online than at school or at home. You said, "If they don't then send 'em packing"...well, it seems that that isn't always an option on here or any other message board, for that matter. And I don't mean that I think I should have the right to force someone to leave a message board. I don't feel that I'm that important at all. I'm saying that I want to be able to openly oppose someone without guilty plaguing me. You know, like Lux does. Lux is my example of the night. :D

[GateandGarden]

So I've newly acquired online bisexuality...:xoxo: :) :blob2:

[GateandGarden]

Yes but I'm special. People here recognise my retardation and almost through pity, cut me some slack. Also because the conservatives don't really speak up and so we get away without too much rebuttal. But I thought you were one of us, no? I didn't realise people were inclined to crucify you for doing the same. I'd like to be crucified, if it's fit for Lennon then I'm up for it.:laugh: Sorry--had to laugh at the Lennon part. Maybe others are criticized on here just as much as I am. Maybe I'm so self-centered that I notice it more when it's me. :woohoo: :o I'm actually thinking of a specific incident, but for the moment, I don't want to cause more trouble than I already have, so I don't want to recount it. :sorry:

EDIT: Oh, and you're not retarded, by the way and I don't think anyone pities you. But I bet you know that and you were just saying that stuff, so...carry on. :wavey:

[GateandGarden]

Hey! Again, when I post it's more a matter of "aw, look at the retard trying to speak, just leave her alone". Perhaps they're encouraging me to develop my communication skills...? I didn't realise I got away with so much until you pointed it out.Aside from the getting away with stuff, I don't think that's true at all, and I suspect that you don't, either. :)
You know I have only one friend in real life and I tell him nothing, so basically I have one quasi-friend seeing as my mother insists online people aren't real. This is not a healthy situation but was supposed to illustrate my lack of social skills (more like lack of desires)......and now that I've mentioned it I've forgotten what the point was. I recall you mentioning friendships in your post.....nope, I've lost it. Oh well, now you know my friendless state.There were times when I really only had one friend myself. And I don't think it was really a reflection on my social skills.

[wondergirl9847]

Ya'll didn't answer my question though...how do we deal with murderers? Leave them in jail forever? They are overcrowded as it is. Should we only put violent offenders in jail and let white-collar offenders pay their debt in other ways? What?

[The Tower]

Ya'll didn't answer my question though...how do we deal with murderers? Leave them in jail forever? They are overcrowded as it is. Should we only put violent offenders in jail and let white-collar offenders pay their debt in other ways? What?
White collar criminals are worse than murderers in my opinion. They tend to effect more people and their damage ends up being more significant in the long haul. Ken Lay and Bernie Ebbers are way, way worse than Charles Manson.

Oh, sorry Christie- your question.... here are some good places to start.

1) Decriminalize drugs. The gov't taxation combined with the savings on the prison and law enforment systems would pay for all the other prison costs/law enforcement. Make the laws about actually committing the crime and not potentially committing the crime (not that drug automatically leads to criminal acts anyways).

2) Stop worrying about sex and nudity and concentrate on curbing violence and the societal empowerment of men. The overwhelming majority of murderers are men- and most murders are crimes of passion directed at people that the murderer knows or is acquainted with. If boys were taught and shown that "alpha male" behaviour is totally unacceptable across the board, that would work towards the lessening of violence.

3) Dump the majority of our tax dollars into education and improving the overall health and wealth of society. Tax the hell out of the ultra-rich and the big businesses that are flush in profits to enable everyone to have a better life.

4) Ban firearms- only law enforcement and the military would legally be able to possess firearms. No guns, less murders.

Of course, these things are just a start- but I betcha the murder rate would drop drastically and become almost as non-existant as Canada, the UK, et. al.

[SuzeQuze]

White collar criminals are worse than murderers in my opinion. They tend to effect more people and their damage ends up being more significant in the long haul. Ken Lay and Bernie Ebbers are way, way worse than Charles Manson.

Oh, sorry Christie- your question.... here are some good places to start.

1) Decriminalize drugs. The gov't taxation combined with the savings on the prison and law enforment systems would pay for all the other prison costs/law enforcement. Make the laws about actually committing the crime and not potentially committing the crime (not that drug automatically leads to criminal acts anyways).

2) Stop worrying about sex and nudity and concentrate on curbing violence and the societal empowerment of men. The overwhelming majority of murderers are men- and most murders are crimes of passion directed at people that the murderer knows or is acquainted with. If boys were taught and shown that "alpha male" behaviour is totally unacceptable across the board, that would work towards the lessening of violence.

3) Dump the majority of our tax dollars into education and improving the overall health and wealth of society. Tax the hell out of the ultra-rich and the big businesses that are flush in profits to enable everyone to have a better life.

4) Ban firearms- only law enforcement and the military would legally be able to possess firearms. No guns, less murders.

Of course, these things are just a start- but I betcha the murder rate would drop drastically and become almost as non-existant as Canada, the UK, et. al.

One of my roommate's Mom's friends is a kindergarted teacher and has had to buy supplies with her own money. This is in a town that has money, not a really wealthy town, but far from poor. I'm sickened by this. So I love your #3. I like the rest too but have to get to bed so no time to comment.

[SuzeQuze]

Hey! Again, when I post it's more a matter of "aw, look at the retard trying to speak, just leave her alone". Perhaps they're encouraging me to develop my communication skills...? I didn't realise I got away with so much until you pointed it out.

You know I have only one friend in real life and I tell him nothing, so basically I have one quasi-friend seeing as my mother insists online people aren't real. This is not a healthy situation but was supposed to illustrate my lack of social skills (more like lack of desires)......and now that I've mentioned it I've forgotten what the point was. I recall you mentioning friendships in your post.....nope, I've lost it. Oh well, now you know my friendless state.

Well Lux, I think that your mom is being harsh because I can assure you I am quite real. Your lack of friends has less to do with your social skills and more to do with agoraphobia, right? Please forgive my directness but you have mentioned this before so I hope you don't mind me bringing it up. I'm just pointing out that it is not because you are "unbefriendable" but because of physical constraints, which I hope you can get the proper care for. :xoxo:

[strandinthewind]

I will never be for any Federal tax on any individual over 15% - anything more is obscene. I think to remedy the problem, you have to fix the $100 hammer mentality of Wash. There probably is enough money there already if they would only stop their wasteful spending - this admin. being the worst I have ever seen in my 38 years - and close the BS loopholes both parties bitch about but never close :shrug:

[wondergirl9847]

Stealing cash from a company is worse than taking a human life? Did I understand you correctly? :shocked: Okay, I disagree, if that's what you meant.

I believe that prostitution should be legalized all over the US. Drugs is more difficult because when people are high, it affects their brain, but so can alcohol, and they are more likely to harm someone. It's a difficult issue for me. I'm not sure about it. They may only hurt themselves (well, they will for sure), but there is that possibility of hurting someone else while high, but getting drunk.....same thing. You may be right about the drugs thing.

AMEN on the taxing the wealthy more and also the super-mega-insanely rich companies. I agree that the education in this country has taken a disturbing downturn. :( Sad.

The thing about the guns. I get what you are saying. People will STILL murder, only with knives, and other weapons, I feel. My dad owns guns, he shoots at targets in the country. That is a touchy subject as well. People like to hunt. :shrug:

Of course, I believe that morality is very important to helping with the crime thing. Since I am a Christian, I feel that the Bible holds many "rules" to help us to make the right decisions. Adultery only leads to people getting hurt and that can lead to the passion part of what you were saying. I realize it's not that black and white, but I'm just saying. Thou shalt not kill....another good rule to live by. Not coveting your neighbor's things, because people do kill for other people's stuff. I remember the whole Air Jordan thing back in the day. That's horrible. :distress:

I realize that people who don't believe in the Bible/God don't care about that, but I do and regardless of your beliefs, they are good rules to live by. Love one another and treat others with love and respect, sounds good, eh? :)

White collar criminals are worse than murderers in my opinion. They tend to effect more people and their damage ends up being more significant in the long haul. Ken Lay and Bernie Ebbers are way, way worse than Charles Manson.

Oh, sorry Christie- your question.... here are some good places to start.

1) Decriminalize drugs. The gov't taxation combined with the savings on the prison and law enforment systems would pay for all the other prison costs/law enforcement. Make the laws about actually committing the crime and not potentially committing the crime (not that drug automatically leads to criminal acts anyways).

2) Stop worrying about sex and nudity and concentrate on curbing violence and the societal empowerment of men. The overwhelming majority of murderers are men- and most murders are crimes of passion directed at people that the murderer knows or is acquainted with. If boys were taught and shown that "alpha male" behaviour is totally unacceptable across the board, that would work towards the lessening of violence.

3) Dump the majority of our tax dollars into education and improving the overall health and wealth of society. Tax the hell out of the ultra-rich and the big businesses that are flush in profits to enable everyone to have a better life.

4) Ban firearms- only law enforcement and the military would legally be able to possess firearms. No guns, less murders.

[wondergirl9847]

There probably is enough money there already if they would only stop their wasteful spending - this admin. being the worst I have ever seen in my 38 years - and close the BS loopholes both parties bitch about but never close :shrug:

A-FRICKIN-MEN!! It makes you wonder why they won't do something about the spending in this country....sesly, it's disgusting.

Oh, right, I know why....GREED.

[dissention]

Deny them great cinema ::sniff:: I'm not an 11 year old boy, nor have I ever been one so I guess I can't see why that film would encourage violence. But perhaps these viewers can't see the irony in that. Film, it is very filmic.

Well, I highly doubt that mnay 11 year olds would view Natural Born Killers and come away with the understanding that you and I would after viewing it. Ask an 11 year old American boy to tell you what irony is and he'll tell you it's a vitamin.

[dissention]

Ya'll didn't answer my question though...how do we deal with murderers? Leave them in jail forever? They are overcrowded as it is. Should we only put violent offenders in jail and let white-collar offenders pay their debt in other ways? What?

Yes, leave them in jail until they die. You'd have to overhaul not only the prison system, but the entire justice system and that requires too much work and effort on the part of the government. As it is, it costs more to execute a prisoner than it does to keep him in jail for life. When people speak of overcrowding, they should be outraged over the fact that someone who is caught with 30 pounds of marijuana is punished with a mandatory minimum sentence in states such as New York and serve 20 years in prison, whereas someone convicted of second-degree murder is given 15 years with the possibility of parole.

[strandinthewind]

A-FRICKIN-MEN!! It makes you wonder why they won't do something about the spending in this country....sesly, it's disgusting.

Oh, right, I know why....GREED.

AND - the solution most people offer is more tax - I will never get it :shrug:

[Moony]

Whereas I'll just take my own company over everyone else, regardless of who they are. Isolation is underrated.
I could not agree with you more. (I hope you're not being sarcastic here...cause I'm serious! :laugh: )

So I've newly acquired online bisexuality, does that mean I get to have an opinion and feel personally offended by all those being referred to? Oh I hope so!
Of course you do! <3

[Moony]

I know. You should ban murder.
WONDERFUL IDEA!! :laugh: :laugh:

[dissention]

Did anyone see that INSANE conservative chick on Wife Swap tonight? I never watch it, but I was flipping through the channels and was astounded by her idiocy to an extreme degree. Those are the kind of people that make me wish passing an IQ test was a requirement for voting. :laugh:

[Hawkeye]

When people speak of overcrowding, they should be outraged over the fact that someone who is caught with 30 pounds of marijuana is punished with a mandatory minimum sentence in states such as New York and serve 20 years in prison, whereas someone convicted of second-degree murder is given 15 years with the possibility of parole.

WTF :shocked: Do they really enforce that. This is why I can't stand America's legal system.

[dissention]

WTF :shocked: Do they really enforce that. This is why I can't stand America's legal system.

You can bet your ass they do. Go do a search on the history of mandatory minimum drug sentences in New York state, it's shocking. There was one woman who was put in prison for over a decade for unknowingly taking a phone call from her boyfriend's drug dealer and simply handing her boyfriend the phone. She finally got out after Clinton pardoned her.

[Hawkeye]

thats messed up, and I live in New York State so I guess I should've known that.

[dissention]

thats messed up, and I live in New York State so I guess I should've known that.

I hope you never get caught with a joint because those mandatory minimum laws apply to not only hardened drug criminals, but first time offenders, too. :laugh:

[wondergirl9847]

You can bet your ass they do. Go do a search on the history of mandatory minimum drug sentences in New York state, it's shocking. There was one woman who was put in prison for over a decade for unknowingly taking a phone call from her boyfriend's drug dealer and simply handing her boyfriend the phone. She finally got out after Clinton pardoned her.


It's stuff like that, that makes the justice system all screwy. Laws DO need to be changed, but like you said, it takes too much effort, and who wants to actually work. :laugh:

I watched Wife Swap too! Both families needed some help, sesly. :shocked: That lady screaming at that family about the new rules....dude, calm down. The son treating that lady like crap on day one....very disrespectful. I would never let my son speak to an adult that way. Fine, if you don't believe in God or the flag, but sheesh, calm down. On the flip side, making your kids keep their room and the house spotless....nuts. That was way anal, but the military families are just like that....very orderly. :shrug: I'm anal about stuff too, but sheesh.

[Moony]

No sarcasm this time. I saw my friend two days ago for the first time in months. Other than that.....nope, I can't think of anything social. Now if I could just move out I wouldn't enduring speeches about being pathetic during the prime of my life. I'd use you an example to illustrate that I'm not the only one but you don't exist, apparently.
Ah, that's my problem! I don't exist!! No one told me before :laugh:

[amber]

It's stuff like that, that makes the justice system all screwy. Laws DO need to be changed, but like you said, it takes too much effort, and who wants to actually work. :laugh:

I watched Wife Swap too! Both families needed some help, sesly. :shocked: That lady screaming at that family about the new rules....dude, calm down. The son treating that lady like crap on day one....very disrespectful. I would never let my son speak to an adult that way. Fine, if you don't believe in God or the flag, but sheesh, calm down. On the flip side, making your kids keep their room and the house spotless....nuts. That was way anal, but the military families are just like that....very orderly. :shrug: I'm anal about stuff too, but sheesh.
I love that show, luckily I came home right in time for it to start! Right now! :thumbsup: Military family is freaking me out. I'm sure the other family will, too. :p

[dissention]

It's stuff like that, that makes the justice system all screwy. Laws DO need to be changed, but like you said, it takes too much effort, and who wants to actually work. :laugh:

I watched Wife Swap too! Both families needed some help, sesly. :shocked: That lady screaming at that family about the new rules....dude, calm down. The son treating that lady like crap on day one....very disrespectful. I would never let my son speak to an adult that way. Fine, if you don't believe in God or the flag, but sheesh, calm down. On the flip side, making your kids keep their room and the house spotless....nuts. That was way anal, but the military families are just like that....very orderly. :shrug: I'm anal about stuff too, but sheesh.

I thought that the peace mom was a RIOT. :laugh: She was so enthusiastic and loving life, it was great. Very entertaining. I almost spittled when she was hooting and hollering about getting rid of the guns at the rule change ceremony! She wouldn't know how to raise a kid if her life depended on it, but that son of hers was a monster. What a disrespectful little heathen.

That conservative family needs help big time. Those kids were obsessed with guns and violence, it was unhealthy. And when the father said "they don't see it as taking guns away, they see it is taking toys away," I couldn't believe it. Is he that clueless? Maybe that should tell you something is wrong, bub, when you raise your kids to embrace guns and violence so openly.

The peace vigil had me rolling on the floor, those neighbors were such world-class idiots. :laugh: But she didn't let it bother her and was very respectful, you gotta admire that. She was great and quite the character. :laugh:

[DrummerDeanna]

I hope you never get caught with a joint because those mandatory minimum laws apply to not only hardened drug criminals, but first time offenders, too. :laugh:


There are lawmakers working to overturn that loser ass minimum sentence thing - it is assinine....:mad:

Also in response to what do you do about murders without the death penalty. As stated - it's really not a huge deterent to murder. I think as also stated people should work to prevent murders and violent crime in the first place.

Rochester is trying to do that - we had the HIGHEST murder rate pre capita in New York State...that's not a good distinction....but in the last year - with a new prevention program - the murder rate has fallen 40% !!!

Also - sad but true - the vast majority of murder victims were black men between the ages of 18-35 - the murderers - also overwhelmingly black males - AND almost ALL of the murders took place in one concentrated area...

A very poor area with lots of drugs, poverty, crime etc......so they know where to start the focus.

Enter Operation Impact. If one guy commits a murder - everyone associated with that guy is targeted - (everyone with any criminal activity background of any kind...) It's proven effective - increased police visibility and the fact that these people know they're being watched and held accountable....

Also also stated more $$ needs to be poured into education and health - a lot of these criminals have mental issues - but if you don't have insurance and in some cases even if you do - mental health is not considered important....:shrug:

Poverty and poor education I think are very much taking their toll :nod:

[dissention]

3) Dump the majority of our tax dollars into education and improving the overall health and wealth of society. Tax the hell out of the ultra-rich and the big businesses that are flush in profits to enable everyone to have a better life.

What really needs to be worked on is making college more accessible and open to people. It should be free, or nearly free, for all. It's kind of sad how kids are forced to go to community colleges because that's all they can afford (or all their circumstances will allow), then they're stigmatized in the work force because of it. It's not right, especially considering that nowadays you need a college degree.

[DrummerDeanna]

What really needs to be worked on is making college more accessible and open to people. It should be free, or nearly free, for all. It's kind of sad how kids are forced to go to community colleges because that's all they can afford (or all their circumstances will allow), then they're stigmatized in the work force because of it. It's not right, especially considering that nowadays you need a college degree.


And there are still TONS of kids who don't even make it out of high school - I mean education is really hurting right now - and No Child Left Behind!?! A CROCK!!!

My sister is a teacher - and it SUCKS right now - as we speak she's missed a whole week of teaching because of these new (and useless) standardized tests...it's such a crock.....especially since it's under funded or not funded at all - education just needs a HUGE overhaul...

[GateandGarden]

...Drugs is more difficult because when people are high, it affects their brain, but so can alcohol, and they are more likely to harm someone. It's a difficult issue for me. I'm not sure about it. They may only hurt themselves (well, they will for sure), but there is that possibility of hurting someone else while high, but getting drunk.....same thing. You may be right about the drugs thing...
I feel pretty much the same way you do about this.

[dissention]

And there are still TONS of kids who don't even make it out of high school - I mean education is really hurting right now - and No Child Left Behind!?! A CROCK!!!

More children are being left behind than ever. So much for being The Education President, eh? :D

My sister is a teacher - and it SUCKS right now - as we speak she's missed a whole week of teaching because of these new (and useless) standardized tests...it's such a crock.....especially since it's under funded or not funded at all - education just needs a HUGE overhaul...

Do they require that you pass the tests in order to graduate? They do that in Massachusetts and it's ridiculous. All the politicians have been trying to get rid of it since it went into effect, but Romney won't sign off on it. The only reason that bastard was elected is because he wanted to make English as a second language classes a requirement, but he hasn't even done anything in regards to that.

One of my old professors wrote a book (http://www.greenwood.com/books/bookdetail.asp?sku=H593) about how community college graduates are looked down upon in the work force and don't have as many opportunities open to them, but now it's becoming even a bigger issue because that's where these kids who fail the MCAS (the standardized test) end up. That is, even if they go to college. It's truly awful and does nothing but put kids down.

[SuzeQuze]

What really needs to be worked on is making college more accessible and open to people. It should be free, or nearly free, for all. It's kind of sad how kids are forced to go to community colleges because that's all they can afford (or all their circumstances will allow), then they're stigmatized in the work force because of it. It's not right, especially considering that nowadays you need a college degree.

Say it loud say it proud! I am in total agreement here. I went to state college which is one step above community I guess. But it wasn't easy for my family to pay for, but bless them they did. It would have been impossible for them to pay for private college. I could have applied for financial aid but I had no idea how to and the idea of owing tens or hundreds of thousands was too overwhelming for me to even contemplate. And it is much worse now. :distress:

[SuzeQuze]

And there are still TONS of kids who don't even make it out of high school - I mean education is really hurting right now - and No Child Left Behind!?! A CROCK!!!

My sister is a teacher - and it SUCKS right now - as we speak she's missed a whole week of teaching because of these new (and useless) standardized tests...it's such a crock.....especially since it's under funded or not funded at all - education just needs a HUGE overhaul...

I hate these tests because they add pressure on the kids that are already under a great deal of pressure.

[strandinthewind]

I hate these tests because they add pressure on the kids that are already under a great deal of pressure.

I am not a fan of them, but I can think of no viable alternative to test if the schools are working. I mean there will always have to be some test to measure that and there are not enough teachers to do it subjectively. So, I am unsure of the immediate solution.

And then if you did it subjectively, would the results be reliable for a scientific statistiscal analysis of how America is learning?

[wondergirl9847]

About the drugs issue...I'm no expert (in fact, I've never seen drugs in real life...shocking, I know. LOL), but it only takes one hit of whatever drug to get you high, right? With alcohol, it varies for people. Some folks can chug 1-2 beers and be wasted, others can hold more. It's a wierd thing.

The whole juvenile death penalty thing is wierd too, because when are you considered an adult? Everyone has a varying opinion about this. Some say 18, some 16, some 21...:shrug: Various cultures have different ages...some as low as 13-14. I didn't really become an adult (well, actually, I'm still not :laugh: ) until 25 or so. I didn't FEEL like an adult until then.

[dissention]

Say it loud say it proud! I am in total agreement here. I went to state college which is one step above community I guess. But it wasn't easy for my family to pay for, but bless them they did. It would have been impossible for them to pay for private college. I could have applied for financial aid but I had no idea how to and the idea of owing tens or hundreds of thousands was too overwhelming for me to even contemplate. And it is much worse now. :distress:

I actually have a funny story about applying to a private college. :laugh:

I applied to Elms College in Chicopee, MA and I didn't realize that it was a Catholic college. At that point, I was just applying to colleges in an attempt to get as many acceptances as possible because I had started taking classes when I was 16 at community college and at that point it was up in the air about which colleges would accept certain credits. I get accepted to Elms, go for a tour, and the first bloody thing this guy shows me is the chapel. I ran out of there faster than a pig runs to a trough. About a week later, I get a big envelope from them outlining my financial aid package should I choose to go there. Over $26,000 a year and almost $10,000 more if I wanted to live on campus (which I did). There was no WAY I was going to get stuck with having to pay half of well over $100,000, probably more if I got my masters from there. No thanks. I ended up going to UMASS and not having to pay a dime for my bachelors because of financial aid. :nod:

[dissention]

I am not a fan of them, but I can think of no viable alternative to test if the schools are working. I mean there will always have to be some test to measure that and there are not enough teachers to do it subjectively. So, I am unsure of the immediate solution.

And then if you did it subjectively, would the results be reliable for a scientific statistiscal analysis of how America is learning?

If they want to give standardized tests, fine. But don't make them a requirement for graduation, it's a disgusting thing to do. I've seen firsthand what it does to kids and it isn't pretty and it isn't fair. We're supposed to be strengthening our youth, not tearing them down and telling them they aren't good enough. For a child to pass every grade, pass every class, fail that one bloody test and then get a "certificate of completion" instead of a diploma is abhorrent.

[DrummerDeanna]

If they want to give standardized tests, fine. But don't make them a requirement for graduation, it's a disgusting thing to do. I've seen firsthand what it does to kids and it isn't pretty and it isn't fair. We're supposed to be strengthening our youth, not tearing them down and telling them they aren't good enough. For a child to pass every grade, pass every class, fail that one bloody test and then get a "certificate of completion" instead of a diploma is abhorrent.


:nod: These tests DON'T work at testing what kids know - that's the problem.

My sister's kids are TOTALLY freaked out this week - she's stressed out because if a teacher's kids don't do well..the teacher gets reamed in front of everyone...

Another thing is the tests are standardized - the same for everyone - but not everyone tests the same - or handles the same types of questions the same - all kids learn differently - but there's no room for differences in these tests....

[amber]

:nod: These tests DON'T work at testing what kids know - that's the problem.

My sister's kids are TOTALLY freaked out this week - she's stressed out because if a teacher's kids don't do well..the teacher gets reamed in front of everyone...

Another thing is the tests are standardized - the same for everyone - but not everyone tests the same - or handles the same types of questions the same - all kids learn differently - but there's no room for differences in these tests....
If the kids are passing in school, shouldn't they do fine? Apparently, standardized testing is a horror and a bane on the existence of students and teachers, but I'm not sure why. Why don't the tests work at testing what kids know? Shouldn't the kids know what's on the tests? However, I know teachers have to teach to these tests, or else, and that seems like a problem. My friend is a teacher, and she hates these tests, too, but she teaches first grade ESL kids, so I understand why she hates them. It's ludicrous to standardize test first grade ESL kids. Anyway, I always liked the testing, so I guess I don't understand well. :confused: But - my friend just did her Masters thesis on why it's bad for kids to hold them back, so...I guess some of those same reasons would apply here? :confused:

[dissention]

If the kids are passing in school, shouldn't they do fine? Apparently, standardized testing is a horror and a bane on the existence of students and teachers, but I'm not sure why. Why don't the tests work at testing what kids know? Shouldn't the kids know what's on the tests? However, I know teachers have to teach to these tests, or else, and that seems like a problem. My friend is a teacher, and she hates these tests, too, but she teaches first grade ESL kids, so I understand why she hates them. It's ludicrous to standardize test first grade ESL kids. Anyway, I always liked the testing, so I guess I don't understand well. :confused: But - my friend just did her Masters thesis on why it's bad for kids to hold them back, so...I guess some of those same reasons would apply here? :confused:

The tests are too broad to measure anything and in order to get kids to pass it, teachers end up dropping their curriculums and teaching to the test, when it should be the other way around. For example, when I took the MCAS in tenth grade, they had math questions regarding caluculus when the state curriculum didn't have kids taking it until eleventh grade. It's absurd. They try to cover all their bases, but then kids end up getting the questions wrong and you can only take it over three times.

[HomerMcvie]

I get accepted to Elms, go for a tour, and the first bloody thing this guy shows me is the chapel. I ran out of there faster than a pig runs to a trough.
Diss, when it comes to religion, you and I are twins! :xoxo:

[amber]

The tests are too broad to measure anything and in order to get kids to pass it, teachers end up dropping their curriculums and teaching to the test, when it should be the other way around. For example, when I took the MCAS in tenth grade, they had math questions regarding caluculus when the state curriculum didn't have kids taking it until eleventh grade. It's absurd. They try to cover all their bases, but then kids end up getting the questions wrong and you can only take it over three times.
Oh, I didn't know the tests were flawed.

[DrummerDeanna]

If the kids are passing in school, shouldn't they do fine? Apparently, standardized testing is a horror and a bane on the existence of students and teachers, but I'm not sure why. Why don't the tests work at testing what kids know? Shouldn't the kids know what's on the tests? However, I know teachers have to teach to these tests, or else, and that seems like a problem. My friend is a teacher, and she hates these tests, too, but she teaches first grade ESL kids, so I understand why she hates them. It's ludicrous to standardize test first grade ESL kids. Anyway, I always liked the testing, so I guess I don't understand well. :confused: But - my friend just did her Masters thesis on why it's bad for kids to hold them back, so...I guess some of those same reasons would apply here? :confused:


Well sadly I don't have the answers to your questions.

I was wondering the same thing - I remember some standardized tests in school - but now it's apparently out of control - and they should test what the kids know - but in some cases the tests themselves are poorly written and unclear.

My sisiter, a good teacher with her master's degree had to sit for TWO HOURS to decipher the instructions and get through some of the information... to some part of a test - she was totally freaked out because she didn't know how her kids were going to fare...

I don't know what the answer is - but what's being done now isn't working - I mean kids today seem dumber than ever befor e- well people in general seem dumber than before - but I think that's a different issue and there is a definite dumbing down of America going on :nod:

[dissention]

Diss, when it comes to religion, you and I are twins! :xoxo:

That's because...

http://www.geocities.com/rnareau/photo.jpg

:lol:

[dissention]

My sisiter, a good teacher with her master's degree had to sit for TWO HOURS to decipher the instructions and get through some of the information... to some part of a test - she was totally freaked out because she didn't know how her kids were going to fare...

I bet 99 out of 100 of those instructions were:

"BE SURE YOU'RE USING A NUMBER TWO PENCIL."

:rolleyes:

[DrummerDeanna]

I bet 99 out of 100 of those instructions were:

"BE SURE YOU'RE USING A NUMBER TWO PENCIL."

:rolleyes:


lol..no my sister wouldn't freak about that - I forgot what she said the subject was - but I think math - and I KNOW that I would totally fail that test if it was presented me - not because I'm a moron - but becase my mind doesn't work in the way the test wants it to...

[amber]

lol..no my sister wouldn't freak about that - I forgot what she said the subject was - but I think math - and I KNOW that I would totally fail that test if it was presented me - not because I'm a moron - but becase my mind doesn't work in the way the test wants it to...
Really? But you're smart and you know things. :confused: Hmmm. I loved the tests, but then, I'm a great tester. As opposed to Diss, who's a great teste. :laugh:

[SuzeQuze]

If they want to give standardized tests, fine. But don't make them a requirement for graduation, it's a disgusting thing to do. I've seen firsthand what it does to kids and it isn't pretty and it isn't fair. We're supposed to be strengthening our youth, not tearing them down and telling them they aren't good enough. For a child to pass every grade, pass every class, fail that one bloody test and then get a "certificate of completion" instead of a diploma is abhorrent.

:nod: It punishes the students. I got a good education and didn't have to take it. Of course I'm also very bright. :p :laugh:

[DrummerDeanna]

Really? But you're smart and you know things. :confused: Hmmm. I loved the tests, but then, I'm a great tester. As opposed to Diss, who's a great teste. :laugh:


I'm not that smart lol - I just pretend to be haha....no but really - the math part - you had this long word problem (bad enough in itself) - then you had to show your work - which makes sense and is normal....but THEN you had to write a step by step analysis of how you arrived at an asnwer...

Now it would take me days to do this now - but a 6th grader!?! AND - what the hell is the step by step analysis about - isn't that what showing your work is for - it shows how the answer was obtained.....

I am SO glad I'm not in school any more :laugh:

[amber]

I'm not that smart lol - I just pretend to be haha....no but really - the math part - you had this long word problem (bad enough in itself) - then you had to show your work - which makes sense and is normal....but THEN you had to write a step by step analysis of how you arrived at an asnwer...

Now it would take me days to do this now - but a 6th grader!?! AND - what the hell is the step by step analysis about - isn't that what showing your work is for - it shows how the answer was obtained.....

I am SO glad I'm not in school any more :laugh:
step by step analysis? that is soooooooooo wrong. That's too hard. We must have gotten Japan's tests by mistake.... :lol:

[The Tower]

Stealing cash from a company is worse than taking a human life? Did I understand you correctly? :shocked: Okay, I disagree, if that's what you meant.
Of course murder is awful. However, white collar crime of the Enron/Tyco/Worldcom brand is worse. Look at the thousands and thousands of people whose lives were ruined because of the sleaziness of a few corporate scumbags. "We know what we're doing and we're going to rip off our employees and shareholders and ruin their lives and we don't care." That is pure evil- because it's methodical and completely cold blooded and calculated, whereas most murders are in the heat of the moment.

[wondergirl9847]

Murder can be just as cold and calculating. Hiring a hitman to murder your spouse...very calculating.

I just don't see human life and stealing cash on the same level. Sorry. I'd rather lose my job than my life.

[GateandGarden]

Murder can be just as cold and calculating. Hiring a hitman to murder your spouse...very calculating.

I just don't see human life and stealing cash on the same level. Sorry. I'd rather lose my job than my life.Me too. Obviously, evil corporations make many people's lives more difficult than they already are, but at least they still have their lives and can pick up the pieces and move on.