Zing!

Uh, don’t you think when people move here they try to learn English as quickly as they can since very few Americans will learn another language. Many of them have to rely on children at first, who learn it in school, and they might be busy trying to earn a living and feeding their families. I’ve worked with many families at schools in 3 different states and I’ve yet to meet anyone who doesn’t want to learn English or doesn’t think it’s important. They know it’s necessary if they want to get ahead.

Also, my father lives part of the year in Texas and travels to Mexico to see doctors and dentists. He doesn’t speak a word of Spanish. It’s interesting how accommodating they can be by speaking English with him and trying to help him out. My brother-in-law travels one week every month for work in Mexico City. They are all very polite and accommodating by speaking English and delighted to help him learn Spanish. They think it’s great that an American is willing to learn, probably not used to that.

And who’s going to pay for the literacy testing? You don’t think that’s going to cost money to develop? It will be just like the NCLB testing now, where they can spend billions developing and administrating tests, but zip for schools and teachers. Now they can spend money on a literacy test when the money could go for teaching English! But then we know what the real objective is, don’t we?

A bigot? I don’t think that this is evidence enough to call him a bigot. I can see where literacy is important in voting. If a person can’t read the ballod or the articles about the candidates leading up to it, then they could make a very poor decision. I’m not saying that it is appropriate to take away the right to vote, but there is something to consider there. I also don’t buy that it’s aimed at anybody who is “not white”. As far as I can see the largest population that this would apply to is the Mexican and Asian immigrants who don’t yet speak English. I can’t see how this would apply to black people, so the whole attacking anyone who isn’t white thing is crap and you guys know it.

I’m not saying that they don’t get a vote. I’m certainly not saying that there is grounds for this thinking because of race. I am only saying that it is fair to say that a person ought to understand the language on the ticket before casting a vote. It is fair to say that somebody who doesn’t understand the English language probably hasn’t had access to much of the information on the candidate and wouldn’t be able to make an educated choice.

What I’m saying would be bigoted if I were talking about taking away a right because of race, but I’m not saying that. I’m actually not saying that anybody should have that right taken away, I’m only saying that I understand the logic in that thinking, only as it concerns understanding.

I said it mainly applied to Asian and Mexican immigrants who don’t yet speak English. Did you catch the end of the sentence Skye? I want to make sure because you clearly didn’t the first time. It is not targeting anyone because of their race. The reason it targets those two populations is because they are the largest immigration groups in this nation right now. I never said that there is any reason they shouldn’t vote because of their race, I just said that I can see the point if they don’t yet know the English language.

The quote you put on was about Obama being elected, it didn’t say anything about black people. It didn’t say anything about white people. It didn’t say anything about race, it was talking about people who don’t understand the language. I haven’t said anything racist, and from what I’ve seen, I’m not sure Tancredo did either. He talked about people who can’t spell and who can’t speak English. I would say that there are plenty of white people who can’t read, and I would think that they’d be in that group as well. I would say that there could be white immigrants who may not speak English and they’d be in that group. If you believe that speaking about people who can’t read only applies to black people, than I’d say that you’re being a racist.

Once again, I’m not saying that a person should have their right to vote taken away, I’m only saying that I can see the logic when the individual can’t read the ticket. I can see the logic when an individual can’t understand the articles and ads and speeches leading up to the election. It is hard to have confidence in the votes casted by those who had no idea what they were voting for. The right to vote is an American right and should be granted to all citizens, I’m not against that, I’m only saying that the frustration has a foundation, and it isn’t a racist one.

You have to realize the history of literacy tests. If you want to claim we’re long past having to make up for our systematic repression of a people based on their race to the point that we can ignore the obvious obstacles we still mount in front of them, you have to at least acknowledge the racism of the literacy test. Just wikipedia it. Then go ahead and defend this douche.

Even if you support literacy tests because they are a means of political information, that would imply that political information is necessary to vote. Should we then test Glenn Beck viewers who have no idea what is happening outside of crazy town before we allow them to vote? Should Michele Bachmann be allowed in Congress after promoting more ridiculous conspiracy theories than Orly Taitz? If you can’t see the racism in these comments you’re blind. Do you think he was blaming the election of Barack Hussein Obama on white people? And did you not see the racism he’s displayed throughout his political career.

And it’s obvious that citizens can make educated choices. And even if you don’t believe American citizens know the language, it’s ridiculous to think that they can’t make educated choices. Is English the only language that can affectively get a message out? Can a person not read any paper in the entire damn world and understand what the principles of our nominees are? I think it might actually be better that way because they wouldn’t have to listen to the garbage opinion we do.

I can’t believe the racism in this man’s statements aren’t obvious. Saying you don’t have to look at the history of literacy tests to understand his motives is like saying you don’t have to look at history when someone says we should have a lynching. Literacy tests have only ever served one purpose: to exclude minorities. This man has made living on spreading fears about non-whites and getting elected based on it. That’s not America.

As Colson Whitehead said, “I know that there are people who really do believe that race no longer matters. That we are, indeed, experiencing life in a post-racial America. I also have some prime ocean real estate to sell them in Nevada.”

from the Year of Living Post-Racially http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/opinion/04whitehead.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=colson%20whitehead&st=cse

Once again, the idea of a literacy is very simple: it is to take away the right to vote for minorities. And as Adam said, you can read a newspaper in another language or watch a news station in another language and still understand the issues so why shouldn’t you be able to vote?

I agree that an educated populace is better than an uneducated one but we deal with this through a better education system. We shouldn’t penalize people for being born poor and having to attend a crappy school.

To qualify for U.S. citizenship, applicants must demonstrate a basic understanding of English, including an ability to read, write, and speak the language. They must also be able to show that they know the fundamentals of U.S. history and government. So why would we need literacy tests to show an understanding of English when this is already required to become a citizen??

In 1999, the U.S. Census Bureau surveyed 14,000 people and concluded that an estimated 47 percent of documented immigrants who had been here at least 10 years had not become U.S. citizens. Inability to speak English is the primary barrier. These people can’t vote, correct??

So my question is what is the point of literacy tests unless it is to target minorities or poor people?

I went out and googled tea bagger sites and found signs displaying these messages (this is just from one site):
“Respect are country, speak English”
“No Amnety”
“Thank you Fox New for keeping us infromed”
“Stop Washinton”
“Governmert is now the problem”
So maybe these tea baggers should focus on making themselves literate and not worry about the rest of us. A literacy test might also have kept out our so very literate “Is our children learning?” President.

What does it take to be a citizen? Do you have to read to be a citizen?

If you can’t read, how do you know who to vote for?

Perhaps you can puzzle out who is who, and then do you still not have the right to vote for what’s in your best interest.

Where is the logic? Do you need to read to have representation? Can you still not have a preference on who you want to represent you?

As for my point that Skye mentioned (about non-English news), I was making a point, and one that fits with Skye’s assertion that you must speak English. I was saying that even if that isn’t true and a citizen can’t speak English, there are other ways of being informed. It’s not the case that there are millions of non-English speaking citizens, but even working under the assumption it is, the argument is illogical.

Read the history of literacy tests, then you should understand why this is upsetting. You’re looking at this as though it is a serious proposition he thinks would better the system, but it clearly is not. He knows exactly what this meant.

Tancredo is despicable.

1) How about people be able to define the word “Socialist” prior to being able to vote?

2) How about those that collect Medicare and at the same time being Anti-Socialist being simply denied the right to vote on pure hypocrisy?

3) How about those who vocalized Support for War and then ran from Military Service during a draft for that same war be banned from Voting of ever holding Public Office? (Particularly for those who got a deferement because of “Depression”)….

Meghan McCain on his comments:

Congressman Tancredo went on TV and he was the first opening speaker and he said, ‘People who could not even spell the word vote or say it in English put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House whose name is Barack Hussein Obama.’ And then he went on to say that people at the convention should have to pass literacy tests in order to be able to vote in this country, which is the same thing that happened in the 50’s to prevent African Americans from voting. It’s innate racism and I think it’s why young people are turned off by this movement. And I’m sorry, but revolutions start with young people, not with 65-year-old people talking about literacy tests and people who can’t say the word ‘vote’ in English.

By the way, and I know, all of the liberals are tired of hearing about it. Barack Obama sat in a church for years listening to an open racist, a man who poored out racism in front of his church. Rev. Wright was a big time racist, and if Obama didn’t know it in all those years attending the church, then he’s an idiot. Now Obama is ok to be in a church like that, but Tancredo’s supposed racism is unforgivable? Now don’t get me wrong, if Tandredo meant what he said as an attack on black people, then he’s wrong. But you have to be willing to say that Obama was equally wrong to stay in that church for all those years. Do you really think he didn’t know what the preacher believed? That would be calling Mr. Obama an idiot. Do you honestly believe that in all those years he never once heard the racist comments made by Wright?

I don’t know what clip you were viewing, but the racism to me was pretty obvious. He knew the history of literacy tests and he was referring to black people and other minorities voting for Barack Hussein Obama. Do you really need to be hit with a brick? That’s what most racism is today; it’s a little more subtle but it’s still racism.

Your comments get more obtuse as we go along. There is no comparison between the two. White people have never been the oppressed–what do the majority of them have to complain about. Have they had to fight for civil rights, equality, justice? No, I think not. And I think Obama has always been clear on it. He has never disowned Wright–he says he could never do that any more than he could disown the black community. Wright has been inciteful but he makes many great factual statements and he has probably had a lot to be angry about. At least he speaks out for oppressed people. What oppressed people does Tancredo speak for? Poor oppressed tea party white supremacists? Really??

Skye’s not saying he’s right, Skye’s saying the circumstances that led him to certain opinions are much different.

What I am saying is that at least Rev. Wright was fighting for equality and justice for people, not just black people. What is Tancredo fighting for but to take rights away from people. Again, the oppressors don’t get to play the victim card. That’s not how it works. And what do you know about what Wright has seen in his lifetime, the injustice that angers him. I wish he were more like MLK; but look at Nelson Mandela–he encouraged people to fight back and MLK went to prison, they’re both considered heroes. Malcolm X, too.

Is that any less believable than “white people enslave our entire race for hundreds of years then killed thousands of us for trying to be equal”? That is the point Skye is trying to drive home.

During 2007, 50% of all new HIV diagnoses and 42% of new AIDS diagnoses were in black people yet they comprise around just 13% of the population–perhaps what Wright is trying to get across is that AIDS is a disease of black people. They are poor and the least likely to be diagnosed. Do you think if it were white people who were getting AIDS at this rate something would be said? I think he’s speaking the truth, I don’t think he believes white people created the disease but they sure don’t seem to care if it’s just black poor people dying from it.
Again, the conservative right just loves to blame all the problems on the bullied, the poor, the victims. If they would just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and toughen up. How about just once trying to see what it is like for someone who is not in your exclusive little club, just try to see what it is like for someone who has not grown up with every advantage. It’s called compassion or empathy.

Those statistics still don’t justify Wright claiming that white people created the disease to kill off black people. That sort of statement is extremely harmful if anybody is naive enough to believe him.

Socialized medicine is dangerous. There are countries with such systems that are forced to deny certain medications and treatments because they are not affordable. There are systems that decide based on how much time is likely to be added to somebody’s life, whether that treatment is covered. The term “death panel” may come across strong, but saying “that treatment will only add 6 months to your life, so we aren’t going to cover it” is basically the same thing. I understand that many people may not be able to afford the types of treatments in question on their own anyway, so it may not be a change from current circumstances for many, but what about those who have insurance policies that would cover such things now? The fear is that a universal system drive out those insurance companies and leave all of us asking Washington what we can and can’t have. It may get blown out of context sometimes, but it is realistic. The fairy tale mentality that says that “Obama’s running healthcare so we’re all covered for everything” is not realistic and people need to know that there would be many things not covered by such a system, especially in the later years of life.

The birther thing doesn’t have much steam. I don’t think Obama’s done anything to completely dismiss such claims, but I don’t think there’s a lot to them anyway. I would say that claiming that Obama wasn’t born in the United States is nowhere near saying that whites created AIDS to kill blacks. The birther people aren’t accusing Obama of genocide.

If universal healthcare came about the way you’d like to see it, it would drive out private insurance companies. The problem with that is that our government would not make people pay what it actually costs, which would result in more debt and eventually cuts in coverage. The government may not kill you, but it may decide what may and may not be done to keep you alive (which is done right now in the U.K.).

My point is that the birthers aren’t accusing Obama of genocide, which is what Wright is doing to the evil white people for “creating AIDS”, the man is a fool.

The U.K. does have a system in place that uses a simple formula to determine if a treatment’s likely benefit in terms of additional life is worth the cost. I’m not saying that they really have a choice in the matter since let’s face it, they cannot shell out $100,000 for a treatment that may only add days to a person’s life, they’d be broke. If you think I’m wrong on this Adam, then you tell me, where does the money come from? At the end of life, most people have to go through very expensive medical care for surgeries, nursing homes, various treatments, etc. Do you really think that the average person will pay enough into a government plan in their lifetime to cover unlimited care during that time, not to mention everything leading up to that time? There is no way, so I ask you, won’t there have to be limits?

My point is that we need to make sure that our government doesn’t create a system that will drive the private insurance companies under. Right now you have the option of finding a plan that will cover you in the way that you want to be covered. If a government plan drives private insurance out business, then you no longer have that option, you are forced into the government plan, which means you are forced into the terms of the government plan.

Just for laughs, what was your way Adam? Just a brief summary would be great, I’d love to know what the mind of Adam Feser has come up with for a long-term healthcare fix.

Dems have the majority, if they knew how to fix social security or healthcare they’d do it. It seems like common sense that you fix social security before you create a healthcare reform bill since social security is already in place. You’re thinking doesn’t make any sense. It would seem like a lot to take it on, but guess what, that’s what they are elected for. They are elected to take on the tough issues. There will never be a good time to do it, there will always be other things going on. The fact remains that if they don’t take it on, a lot of people will not have the retirement benefit they thought they were paying for. You talk about healthcare being a right, well I’d say that social security is a right because we’ve been paying for it and it’s been promised, let’s see it get fixed.

At least the for-profit companies give you the terms of the insurance policy before you buy it, they don’t just tax you for it and tell you what it’s going to be.

Thank you for sharing the link about France’s health care system. It appears to me that we could take advice not only about their health care system but perhaps also their educational system.

Following are excerpts from Obama’s “More Perfect Union” Speech from March 18, 2008. I think he answers the Rev. Wright issue very well. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/18/obama-race-speech-read-t_n_92077.html

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.
Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

……
And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

And….

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, “The past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past.” We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students.

Legalized discrimination – where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments – meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today’s urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn’t make it – those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations – those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

….
Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

…But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old — is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know — what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

That was a good speech, but there are a few problems with it.

“those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways.”—I struggle with the idea that if a black person is in jail, it must be because of racial injustice, not because they are a criminal.

I also don’t buy the whole thing about staying in the church even though Wright said those things. I think the pastor of my church is great, I’ve been attending his services for the better part of 20 years and he’s an outstanding preacher, leader, and example for the men and boys in the church. Having said that, I guarantee you, if he ever displayed any sort of racism in a service or anywhere else, I’d be gone. I would leave the service, I would find another church and I wouldn’t think twice about doing it. I wouldn’t be able to write it off because the man is doing so much good in so many other areas, I wouldn’t be comfortable with my kids hearing racism from a man that they are taught to admire, respect, and learn from. Obama should have made a stand on this and found a new church if he really believes that this thinking is out of touch with America today.

Most of the time Rush’s “racist” comments aren’t really racist, like the McNabb thing, that wasn’t racist at all, I was watching when he said it. There are plently of stupid things Rush says and does, but I don’t know of any truly racist things he’s said. If you have some, let’s hear them.

“Most of the time Rush’s “racist” comments aren’t really racist, like the McNabb thing, that wasn’t racist at all, I was watching when he said it.”

Sorry if I don’t take your opinion on this seriously; I don’t think you have a very good track record on what constitutes racial or bigoted comments. As long as it’s not overtly racist or using the “N word” you seem to be ok with it. I’ll trust my own judgment.

“Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?”

“Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.”

“The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.”

“Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.”

“We need segregated buses… This is Obama’s America.”

“Obama’s entire economic program is reparations!”

“Obama has disowned his white half … he’s decided he’s got to go all in on the black side.”

“Here you have a black president trying to destroy a white policeman.”

“What color is the skin of the people in Darfur? It’s black. And who do the Democrats really need to keep voting for them? If they lose a significant percentage of this voting bloc, they’re in trouble.”

This just took a couple minutes, and I could go on.

Rush said People wanted McNabb to be good because he was black and that he was being unfairly praised. What is Rush possibly talking about besides McNabb being lauded unfairly because of his race? If you check out McNabb’s stats, he’s a great quarterback. His overall quarterback rating is five points higher than John Elway’s, a tenth of a point lower than Brett Favre’s, and a tenth of a point higher than Dan Marino’s.

The disparity in the system is why we should ban the death penalty. The system does create hardened criminals because of our drug laws. People get sent to maximum security prisons for years with violent offenders when they have committed no violent crime then come out worse. Our drug laws and penalties need to be changed and geared towards fixing addiction. Without that, the penalty does no good in reforming the offender.

But yeah, Rush is a definitely a racist, and literacy tests are a racist tradition.

There is no argument to make me think we need the death penalty. I’ve heard them all and none work.

Big dealers do need penalties but the penalties for use shouldn’t be so bad because the users that go in often come out worse. It isn’t about dumbing down punishments, because they are currently dumb. It’s about making them smart so they actually help solve some of the problems instead of making them worse.

The issue is race specific when dealing with cocaine. Black Americans receive exponentially worse than white cocaine users.

Yes, it’s a brilliant idea to leave justice in the hands of the victim.

We have killed and are likely to kill more innocent men. I can’t live with that. A nation that kills its own citizens seems ridiculous, especially when men can make mistakes when deciding guilt. That seems pretty damn reasonable to me.

And it is a racist institution.

So if you’re the father of a little girl who is a victim of one of the terrible crimes we see on tv on a regular basis, you’re going to be happy with jail time even if the man confesses on the stand? What if he has no remorse? You’d still be able to look straight in his eyes and say that he does not deserve the death penalty?

You didn’t answer one question. What if the guy confessed? In that case there is no possibility that he’s innocent, what then?

One minute you say that the jury shouldn’t decide, then you try to defend Clinton by saying that the jury recommended it. Was Clinton wrong or not?

My point in not for revenge, it’s for justice. Certain crimes warrant death, period. When I see these cases and trials on tv I have a hard time understanding why people actually defend the true monsters of our society. What is your reason for defending people who commit absolutely sick crimes, in many cases admit it, and often show no remorse. What makes you feel like they deserve to live?

Don’t confuse refenge and justice Adam. The idea of justice is to provide closure and to exact revenge on a person. The idea of a punishment is in a way to exact revenge. If you steal a car, you’re going to get jail time for doing it. Why give the jail time? Why press charges? To punish the person! If you’re saying that wanting revenge on somebody who does you wrong is a bad idea, then you’d probably better never press charges on anyone for anything. What would be the point if you don’t believe that anything should happen to them for their crime?

I don’t understand the point of life without parol, why not use execution and save the tax payers the burden of supporting someone who totally gave up any sort of decency as a citizen of this country or a member of the human race.

I am pro-life. I also believe in a solid judicial system. I believe that certain crimes warrant death, not because I take human life lightly, but because using the death penalty system does keep people in check. It’s not a matter of the state deciding to take somebody’s life. It’s a matter of setting a law that says: If you take somebody’s life in cold blood, you will be executed. When a person takes another life in cold blood, they are aware of the consequence and are in effect taking their own life. The state may carry out the execution, but they didn’t make the choice. I do believe that the death penalty should only be given in cases of confession, or evidence that erases any shadow of doubt, and these days our technology is very impressive. If there is doubt, but a conviction is reached, then the life in prison sentence makes more sense.

Many people do find Jesus Christ in prison, that’s true. God does forgive all sin, but forgiveness doesn’t mean that a person will never sin again. Our legal system still has to work. I believe that God can and does forgive any sin if a person is saved, but that doesn’t mean that a serial killer should be released because he got saved.

As you said, none of us are without sin. But, as I said, if a person breaks a law, they are accepting the penalty for that crime.

Check out Mike’s rant. http://theamericannews.net/election/?p=1491

Off-hoot of thi initiative unuccefully urfaced in a few tate and California ha recently uccefully enacted a law that could/would mandate tudent drugging without parental permiion

Hi there I just think that you have got a good web log going at this point, I found it on Ask and plan on revisiting repeatedly for the advice that you all are delivering.|Many thanks for making my afternoon a bit touch better with this good page