"JRH" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
WooferBearATL said:
"JRH" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:53:32 -0500, "WooferBearATL" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
A typical comeback from a PC type bleeding heart Liberal. Get a reasonable answer on one controversial hypothetical situation, and then conveniently shift it to another completely unrelated one, in an attempt to gain the high moral ground.
+ On the putting someone to death, there really is only one way to be on the "higher moral ground." Murder is Murder. Does not matter if the state does it or if it's done by one of these criminals.
Quoted message said:
Not on your life Woofter; it's not as simple as that.
+ It really is that simple. That's what's so sad about the situation. I believe that while we still have the death penalty, that those that support it should be part of a pool. They would be selected at random to participate in completing the act of execution. If this is such a "Just" punishment, there should be no problem in creating a Jury Pool such as this. I'm thinking that when push came to shove, some opinions would be changed.
"JRH" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
WooferBearATL said:
"JRH" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:53:32 -0500, "WooferBearATL" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > >>
A typical comeback from a PC type bleeding heart Liberal. Get a reasonable answer on one controversial hypothetical situation, and then conveniently shift it to another completely unrelated one, in an attempt to gain the high moral ground.
+ On the putting someone to death, there really is only one way to be on the "higher moral ground." Murder is Murder. Does not matter if the state does it or if it's done by one of these criminals.
If it was a simple and clear cut as that, it would not be the topic of conversation that it is.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Not on your life Woofter; it's not as simple as that.
+ It really is that simple. That's what's so sad about the situation. I believe that while we still have the death penalty, that those that support it should be part of a pool. They would be selected at random to participate in completing the act of execution. If this is such a "Just" punishment, there should be no problem in creating a Jury Pool such as this. I'm thinking that when push came to shove, some opinions would be changed.
How wrong can you be? They would be queuing up for the job, and if it was someone dear to me I would be right in the front of the queue.
"JRH" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
WooferBearATL said:
"JRH" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:19:08 -0500, "WooferBearATL" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >"JRH" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:53:32 -0500, "WooferBearATL" >> <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >>>
A typical comeback from a PC type bleeding heart Liberal. Get a reasonable answer on one controversial hypothetical situation, and then conveniently shift it to another completely unrelated one, in an attempt to gain the high moral ground.
+ On the putting someone to death, there really is only one way to be on the "higher moral ground." Murder is Murder. Does not matter if the state does it or if it's done by one of these criminals.
If it was a simple and clear cut as that, it would not be the topic of conversation that it is.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Not on your life Woofter; it's not as simple as that.
+ It really is that simple. That's what's so sad about the situation. I believe that while we still have the death penalty, that those that support it should be part of a pool. They would be selected at random to participate in completing the act of execution. If this is such a "Just" punishment, there should be no problem in creating a Jury Pool such as this. I'm thinking that when push came to shove, some opinions would be changed.
How wrong can you be? They would be queuing up for the job, and if it was someone dear to me I would be right in the front of the queue.
+ Let me see - having worked as a Social Worker and understanding Human Nature, I can be pretty sure.
WooferBearATL <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"JRH" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
WooferBearATL said:
"JRH" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:53:32 -0500, "WooferBearATL" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > >>
A typical comeback from a PC type bleeding heart Liberal. Get a reasonable answer on one controversial hypothetical situation, and then conveniently shift it to another completely unrelated one, in
an
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
attempt to gain the high moral ground.
+ On the putting someone to death, there really is only one way to
be on the
Quoted message said:
"higher moral ground." Murder is Murder. Does not matter if the
state
Quoted message said:
does it or if it's done by one of these criminals.
Quoted message said:
Not on your life Woofter; it's not as simple as that.
+ It really is that simple. That's what's so sad about the
situation. I
Quoted message said:
believe that while we still have the death penalty, that those that
support
Quoted message said:
it should be part of a pool. They would be selected at random to participate in completing the act of execution. If this is such a
"Just"
Quoted message said:
punishment, there should be no problem in creating a Jury Pool such
as this.
Quoted message said:
I'm thinking that when push came to shove, some opinions would be
changed.
Quoted message said:
How would that be any different than what exists today. Every juror in every capital murder trial must support the death penalty in at least some situation.
"JRH" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
WooferBearATL said:
"JRH" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:19:08 -0500, "WooferBearATL" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> >>"JRH" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>news:[email hidden]... >>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:53:32 -0500, "WooferBearATL" >>> <[email hidden]> wrote: >>> >>>> > > A typical comeback from a PC type bleeding heart Liberal. Get a > reasonable answer on one controversial hypothetical situation, and > then conveniently shift it to another completely unrelated one, in an > attempt to gain the high moral ground. > + On the putting someone to death, there really is only one way to be on the "higher moral ground." Murder is Murder. Does not matter if the state does it or if it's done by one of these criminals.
If it was a simple and clear cut as that, it would not be the topic of conversation that it is.
Quoted message said:
> Not on your life Woofter; it's not as simple as that. > + It really is that simple. That's what's so sad about the situation. I believe that while we still have the death penalty, that those that support it should be part of a pool. They would be selected at random to participate in completing the act of execution. If this is such a "Just" punishment, there should be no problem in creating a Jury Pool such as this. I'm thinking that when push came to shove, some opinions would be changed.
How wrong can you be? They would be queuing up for the job, and if it was someone dear to me I would be right in the front of the queue.
+ Let me see - having worked as a Social Worker and understanding Human Nature, I can be pretty sure.
<snigger>
That's convinced me that you are more than qualified to give judgment.
"Matthew Venhaus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
WooferBearATL <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"JRH" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:19:08 -0500, "WooferBearATL" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >"JRH" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:53:32 -0500, "WooferBearATL" >> <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >>>
A typical comeback from a PC type bleeding heart Liberal. Get a reasonable answer on one controversial hypothetical situation, and then conveniently shift it to another completely unrelated one, in
an
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
attempt to gain the high moral ground.
+ On the putting someone to death, there really is only one way to
be on the
Quoted message said:
"higher moral ground." Murder is Murder. Does not matter if the
state
Quoted message said:
does it or if it's done by one of these criminals.
Quoted message said:
Not on your life Woofter; it's not as simple as that.
+ It really is that simple. That's what's so sad about the
situation. I
Quoted message said:
believe that while we still have the death penalty, that those that
support
Quoted message said:
it should be part of a pool. They would be selected at random to participate in completing the act of execution. If this is such a
"Just"
Quoted message said:
punishment, there should be no problem in creating a Jury Pool such
as this.
Quoted message said:
I'm thinking that when push came to shove, some opinions would be
changed.
Quoted message said:
How would that be any different than what exists today. Every juror in every capital murder trial must support the death penalty in at least some situation.
It's very much different when you are the one that has to push the button and watch the other person put to death. I say it's more than fair to expect this to be done. I know a lot of people that support the death penalty that would never be able to do the deed themselves.
It's very much different when you are the one that has to push the button and watch the other person put to death. I say it's more than fair to expect this to be done. I know a lot of people that support the death penalty that would never be able to do the deed themselves.
We can't make peoples personal distaste for doing what is right determine what is right to be done. Most people couldn't kill a cow but they still like a good steak.
Stephen Nishio --> I'd eat the damn thing still standing...
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:36:09 -0500, "WooferBearATL" <[email hidden]> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
Quoted message said:
"JRH" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
WooferBearATL said:
"JRH" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:53:32 -0500, "WooferBearATL" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > >>
A typical comeback from a PC type bleeding heart Liberal. Get a reasonable answer on one controversial hypothetical situation, and then conveniently shift it to another completely unrelated one, in an attempt to gain the high moral ground.
+ On the putting someone to death, there really is only one way to be on the "higher moral ground." Murder is Murder. Does not matter if the state does it or if it's done by one of these criminals.
Quoted message said:
Not on your life Woofter; it's not as simple as that.
+ It really is that simple. That's what's so sad about the situation. I believe that while we still have the death penalty, that those that support it should be part of a pool. They would be selected at random to participate in completing the act of execution. If this is such a "Just" punishment, there should be no problem in creating a Jury Pool such as this. I'm thinking that when push came to shove, some opinions would be changed.
Larry and I volunteered for this long ago. Where do we sign up?
