Tired_Old_Man

Someday, Lap-Bands may become passe as scientists learn where to hit the brain (to damage a section of it) in order to control addiction. It seems to have worked by accident to stop a 2 pack per day smoker. Much more reserach will be needed. So, "Don't Hit Yourself in the Head with a Hammer Just Yet" may be the best advice.

TURN THE OTHER CHEEK!!

That sounds about right!! That is how God works!Or mental illness. Or maybe the voice of SATAN!!

There is some merit to that because Christ was a Jew as were all of the Apostles. The people who became the first Christians had to be Jewish or had to convert to Judaism first in order to then convert to Christianity. Of course this requires much interpretation of the "Older Testament" or Tora to make things fit. Much of what is in the Jewish version of the "Old Testament" is not in the Christian Version and vice versa. There is a movement afoot in some of the Christian Right Political Movement circles to back the state of Israel in order to bring on the start of the "End of Days" countdown. For all we know, the Illogical Illegal Iraqi Invasion may have been the first step of the "Tribulation". For those that do not like my mixing of politics into this religious thread, please realize that US politics and the Middle-East's (including Israeli) politics are completely intertwined with religion. If the problems in the Middle-East were about any other issue, they could be solved in a very short time. Also please realize that this thread was about a political issue at its inception.

"No, Sharon Tate nor Abigail Folger will come back to life if the killers are executed, but their families would not have to relive their murders every few years by having to go to the parole hearings tryin to keep them in prison." The families do not need to keep going back for parole hearings, they want to. Their need for vengeance is keeping them in Hell and ruining their lives, and is self destructive You may have noticed how the Amish welcomed the family of the killer of the 7 school children into their homes. They could have acted like most Americans and shunned them, but they forgave. Forgiveness is too often preached, but very seldom practiced. The families who dedicate their lives to parole hearings are killing themselves in a possibly subconscious attempt to join their deceased love ones. I watched a documentary once about a family in which a little girl watched a family friend kill her mother in their home. The other children and their father were not home. The man was sentenced to life in jail. The two other children and their father dedicated their lives to making sure the murderer would never be paroled, while the girl who was the witness moved away and flushed vengeance (and hate) from her mind. She is living a descent life. The father and her two sibling have all had bouts of alcohol and drug related problems including multiple failed marriages. Hatred truly harms the hater, while the hated is not effected.

"And, if you have ever seen an interview with Charles Manson, you would absolutely believe he was a monster." No. He is a human being that belongs in a mental institution. We, from the community of fat people who can not control our emotions and who get angry because people make fun of us because that emotional disorder manifests itself as over-eating, should realize that not only physical illness is beyond the control of human beings. I am not taking pity on Mr. Manson, but he is truly sick just as (though not like) I am sick. We both know better (the only legal definition), but we are unable to control ourselves. Maybe someday mental illness including may be cured. Maybe the Charles Manson's of the world can be cured before they act in their depraved way. Maybe that research will help those like me, who can not control eating and/or others who can not control gambling, wife beating, etc. Or maybe it will be the other way around; the cure for over-eating, gambling, wife beating, etc. will lead to a cure for the mental illness that Charles Manson is a poster boy for. Either way, Charles Manson is no monster. He is a human being.

"He was found guilty in a civil court for causing their deaths and ordered to pay $36,000,000, which he has not paid a dime of." OJ was not found quilty in a civil court. Civil courts do not have guilt or innocent verdits. Civil courts are not set to the same standards as criminal court. If the standards for criminal court were lowered to that of civil court, you would be living in Nazi America. "He was found not guilty because the jury had reasonable doubt." That is all that is required. That is all that is ever required in this country.

"12 jurors are chosen from the community where the crime occurs, so people like myself and mousecrazy have just as much right to be on a jury as you do. I believe having the 12 people ends up making the jury balanced." I am not allowed to be on the jury, because I do not believe in the death penality, so the jury is already stacked (because my disqualification means it is not a jury of peers).

The most beautiful part of a women is her mind and that is what I will say to my wife in 6 months on our 40th wedding anniversary.:clap2:

Are you hearing excuses? Wouldn't you fire a worker if he was unable to do any of the requested tasks given to him?

Are you hearing voices?

How do you know she murdered her children? Because a jury said so? How many juries have been wrong? Wasn't the OJ Simpson Jury wrong? Or do you only think juries are wrong when they acquit? Are they people or monsters? Make up your mind. Will Sharon Tate or Abigail Folger get a chance to come back to life if their killers are executed? Scott Peterson was convicted on the flimsiest of evidence. Will you change your tune if someone else is found to have been the killer prior to Scott Peterson's execution? Who should we execute in those cases? Should we pick someone at random? So you not only wanted people on death row executed, but also people who were found innocent? You claim the opposite in your last paragraph. Should I be executed for pointing out these faults? And many people have had their death penalty overturned because they were 100% innocent and it took many years in many cases. One, I believe took 18 years before the death row inmate was proved to be 100% innocent. Would you care if he had been put to death for the crime he didn't commit so that you could have your "die and quickly" wish?

There is no scientific basis. It is just an attempt to fit what someone observes with a preaccepted conclusion.

And I am not accusing you of that. I respect your knowledge and your willingness to research and fight for what you believe, but the people you are relying on for research either have a political agenda or have sold out to those that have a political agenda. Watching religion grab at straws for centuries to keep its need to prove the literal interpretation of the bible, has only shown a willingness to be very un-Christ-like. "Thou shalt not lie" has never been one of the Religious Right's strong suits. I do not question your integrity, just the people that you are relying on. No scientist needs to have a political agenda. No scientist should have a political agenda, yet we have read reports from cigarette company scientists for generations claiming that smoking is not harmful. See who is paying the salary of any of the scientists involved in the Evolution vs. Creationism debate. If a Right Wing Religious organization is paying the creationist's salary, it does not prove the creationist is lying, but... Follow the money.

The scientists that are pushing creationism IMHO are doing it for one of two reasons. Either money being paid to them by the Religious Right or a need to feel that their Christianity and its myths must be sustained at the expense of their scientific integrity.

And when scientists were put to death by the (philosophical) ancestors of creationists, would you also have said that once the establishment has spouted something as truth, it takes a heck of a lot of time to reverse it?

It would seem that God is more complex that even the most complex building or organism, so who do you think designed God?

I believe that I was basically saying the same thing when I said, "Trying to pass off religion as science is my complaint".

When you say to me, "Your preference seems to be to dismiss creation theory as a knee-jerk reaction because you don't want to consider the option that the Bible might be literal," you miss one point about my reasoning process. If creationism is valid, it is not because it is based on science, but because God put misleading scientific evidence in the way of scientists. If I would have said, "All of this is of course consistent with the simultaneous creation of all water-dwelling creatures on day six of creation week", it would not have been any less valid scientifically. It would have been invalid versus creationism based on Biblical text. Trying to pass off religion as science is my complaint and when the USA tries to develop scientists for the future, this inability to distinguish myth from scientific research will harm our nation. This is one of the reasons why the USA has not taken the lead in fighting climate change, because we as a political nation bordering on a theocracy fight science. We will be at the level of 3rd world Muslim countries soon if we do not start realizing the difference.

I missed the science that proves that on day five all the fish were created.

The USA is one of only a handful of countries that uses the death penalty. Do a google and when you find out who the other countries are, you might want to take a shower.

Only WASP's have the right to be President of the USA. The voting public only made one mistake in the 230 years of electing presidents and look what happened, JFK a WASRC almost got us into a war with the Soviet Union and then got himself killed. When will we learn not to mess with the Rx for proper American government?:help:

Let me explain why I am so confused. I hope you know something about baseball. I am right-handed. When I was young, my step-father gave me a baseball glove for my birthday. He said, pointing to one of my hands: "This is the right hand to wear the glove on." And then pointing to my other hand, he said: "And this is the hand that is left to throw the ball.":faint:

Or it could be that all of the three bubbles are true, but that God is playing a war game with us as the toy soldiers. But there is no evidence of that, so I guess I am delusional.:faint:

A group called the "Institute for Historical Review" was founded in 1978. One of its founding members wrote a book suggested that the Holocaust was an exaggeration and that it was not anywhere near as large in scope or as evil as most Americans had been taught to believe. The bibliography of the book was sparse. A year later, another founder of the "Institute for Historical Review" (IHR) wrote a book with similar contentions and it used the above book in its bibliography. A year later a third founder of the IHR wrote a similar book and it used the afore mentioned two books in its bibliography. After about 10 years and a book or two by each of the founders, a book was written with an impressive bibliography. How can anyone challenge that book in its contentions that only a small number of Jews died in German camps, and those that did, died from sickness? Here is a studious work with many footnotes and much collaborative proof. Did I change the subject or did I make a point about fostering an agenda?