True cause of global warming

[mantakos]

... if its REALLY that disastrous of an issue, they would quit telling everyone what to do and just do it themselves. Until then they can STFU and quit being hypocrites.

I think you just disproved the existence of God.
-harry

 

[Henning]

I think you just disproved the existence of God.
-harry

No, only the definition. By the nature of God being undefinable it's impossible to disprove the existence. If most people just redefined God from someone that watches you to a dimension that runs through you, they would likely be much more accurate.

Genesis actually describes what happens when you introduce Space-Time to chaos. Without Space-Time, there can be no "order" no "light", only chaos of information. Therefor, Biblically proven, God is Space Time. Space-Time runs through everything every when. It is omniscient because it is what orders all the information in the universe. Omnipresent as it runs through everything thing and when. Omnipotent because without Space Time, you are nothing.

 

[dmccormack]

No, only the definition. By the nature of God being undefinable it's impossible to disprove the existence. If most people just redefined God from someone that watches you to a dimension that runs through you, they would likely be much more accurate.

Genesis actually describes what happens when you introduce Space-Time to chaos. Without Space-Time, there can be no "order" no "light", only chaos of information. Therefor, Biblically proven, God is Space Time. Space-Time runs through everything every when. It is omniscient because it is what orders all the information in the universe. Omnipresent as it runs through everything thing and when. Omnipotent because without Space Time, you are nothing.

So you concur with Paul's quote of a Greek poet? (Found in Acts 17)

28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’[b]

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

What's appropriate? Under whose definition next? At what cost? To what benefit?

By "appropriate," I meant "a person who is innocent doesn't get executed." I'm not talking about *what* we execute for.

 

[Gmaper]

Science is always changing. So, maybe Einstein didn't have it quite right? Here is a report that the speed of light has been exceeded. But wait, some scientists don't agree. So what is new with that?

http://detnews.com/article/20110923...er-than-the-speed-of-light?-Research-says-yes

 

[dmccormack]

Here's one strong reason for me to be very wary of "scientific" AGW claims...

In 1975-76 I was in Mr Kennington's meteorology class in Hillside high School, Hillside, NJ. He was a fine, very bright, very dedicated older teacher who always wore a white lab coat and looked over his reading spectacles when lecturing.

Even those of us with less-than-stellar classroom behavior records listened and took notes.

A recurring theme in Mr Kennington's classes was the danger posed by "unchecked dumping of particulate matter" into the atmosphere. We studied graphs, did experiments, and read various scientific papers about the planet's impending doom.

One experiment in particular was eye-opening: We set up a collection device on the roof and would check it each week. Lo! Particulate matter wafting above us!

The result of all those floating matter was reflection of the earth's warming rays. the ice caps were growing already, we were told. Soon we'd be locked in a second ice age and soon a huge glacier would roll right over Hillside on its way to Rahway.

Every so often one of us would challenge these dire warnings with one of our own unscientific observations: "But Mister Kennington, it was really hot this summer!"

The scorn would rain down, often while shaking a magazine with articles by guys with really long names, or waving a hand at the clear evidence of trees dying right there on the table. How dare we think our puny, uneducated minds comprehend such complex, utterly important stuff!!!

Here's my conclusion drawn from that year-long social experiment: Beware the scientists -- they may wrong, and get really pi$$ed when you dare say so.

 

[mantakos]

Here's one strong reason for me to be very wary of "scientific" AGW claims....

In the years leading up to Y2K, computer geeks started piping up about an impending problem embedded in a lot of older software. As the end of the century got closer, the story got wings, everybody started talking about it, and companies all took on large efforts in testing and fixing and upgrading to ensure that they'd handle the transition just fine.

When Y2K rolled along, everybody held their breath... and then nothing happened. Some might conclude from this "Ha! What a bunch of hooey!". Some others might conclude "Well, that's what's supposed to happen, awareness rises and everybody takes corrective actions, and the end of the world is thus averted".

You might similarly conclude "Ha! All this hooey about particulate pollution!" Some others might conclude "Well, that's what's supposed to happen, awareness of the problem rose, corrective action was taken, and the level of particulate pollution is now much lower than it used to be."
-harry

 

[LDJones]

You might similarly conclude "Ha! All this hooey about particulate pollution!" Some others might conclude "Well, that's what's supposed to happen, awareness of the problem rose, corrective action was taken, and the level of particulate pollution is now much lower than it used to be."
-harry

But all that reduction in particulate matter must have gone too far so as to lead to global warming!

The reality is every time we create a "solution" to a perceived "problem" we don't fully understand we end up creating more problems for ourselves. The earth seems to have some pretty amazing coping mechanisms we're not even close to fully understanding. To start implementing policies with serious economic ramifications without understanding those is stupid.

 

[mantakos]

... The earth seems to have some pretty amazing coping mechanisms ...

In a thousand years there might be some great mutant radiation-resistant three-eyed fish in the ponds around Chernobyl, and that's peachy, but it doesn't mean I want to live there today.

I'll note that we take a different attitude toward "knowledge" and "problems" and "solutions" and "proof" and "evidence" and "gratuitous quote marks" when we have a political reason for pretending we doe-eyed innocents could never possibly be smart enough to correlate cause and effect and stop pooping in our swimming pool.
-harry

 

[LDJones]

By "appropriate," I meant "a person who is innocent doesn't get executed." I'm not talking about *what* we execute for.

Last time I researched this I couldn't find any examples of conclusive proof of an innocent person being put to death. We have numerous examples of those spared killing again. I'm willing to take my chances with the level of safeguards baked into the current system.

 

[LDJones]

In a thousand years there might be some great mutant radiation-resistant three-eyed fish in the ponds around Chernobyl, and that's peachy, but it doesn't mean I want to live there today.

I'll note that we take a different attitude toward "knowledge" and "problems" and "solutions" and "proof" and "evidence" and "gratuitous quote marks" when we have a political reason for pretending we doe-eyed innocents could never possibly be smart enough to correlate cause and effect and stop pooping in our swimming pool.
-harry

Well, we obviously DO have some issues correlating cause and effect, especially in the area of AGW. But for the record, I DO oppose pooping in the pool. For that, the science is fairly well settled. AGW, not so much.

 

[mantakos]

Last time I researched this I couldn't find any examples of conclusive proof of an innocent person being put to death...

When new evidence emerges and somebody is sprung from death row, we can use them as example of wrongful "almost" execution.

When somebody has already been executed, I don't believe there's any court process by which to exonerate them, and we just put them on a list of "we suspect they might have been innocent". There are certainly cases of posthumous pardons.

But if innocents are sprung from death row, then it's fairly clear that some percentage of innocents weren't saved in time.

It's just common sense to accept that some percentage of those executed in this country were innocent. If you don't accept that, then you're just selling yourself something.

We have numerous examples of those spared killing again.

Presumably killing other prisoners, because the alternative to the death penalty isn't "set them free".

I'm willing to take my chances...

Your chances?
-harry

 

[LDJones]

When new evidence emerges and somebody is sprung from death row, we can use them as example of wrongful "almost" execution.

When somebody has already been executed, I don't believe there's any court process by which to exonerate them, and we just put them on a list of "we suspect they might have been innocent". There are certainly cases of posthumous pardons.

But if innocents are sprung from death row, then it's fairly clear that some percentage of innocents weren't saved in time.

It's just common sense to accept that some percentage of those executed in this country were innocent. If you don't accept that, then you're just selling yourself something.

Presumably killing other prisoners, because the alternative to the death penalty isn't "set them free".

Your chances?
-harry

Well, we have examples of those "innocents" set free that have killed (again?)

 

[mantakos]

Well, we have examples of those "innocents" set free that have killed (again?)

And what policy does this recommend? Put them to death quickly, before they're found innocent and set free?

I'm a little confused here. Does future crime imply guilt in past crime, or is it that future crime is proof of a failure to properly incarcerate or terminate for innocence in a past crime?
-harry

 

[Jay Honeck]

You might similarly conclude "Ha! All this hooey about particulate pollution!" Some others might conclude "Well, that's what's supposed to happen, awareness of the problem rose, corrective action was taken, and the level of particulate pollution is now much lower than it used to be."
-harry

Yup. Just look at Gary, Indiana or Racine, Wisconsin. Back in "the day" their skies were blackened by the sweat and toil of all those high-paying union guys, forging steel and building tractors.

Now, the skies are clean and blue.

 

[Everskyward]

The earth seems to have some pretty amazing coping mechanisms we're not even close to fully understanding. To start implementing policies with serious economic ramifications without understanding those is stupid.

I don't think the concern is about "the earth". Some people want to make it about Mother Nature but it's really not, it's about us. I don't think there's any question that the climate is warming. The question is how much is human-caused and how much can we can change the course of what is happening. If we can't change it we at least need to be able to react to its effects when it does change. Personally I think anti-pollution laws are necessary even in the absence of climate change just for the sake of our health.

 

[Anthony]

Personally I think anti-pollution laws are necessary even in the absence of climate change just for the sake of our health.

Nobody is saying we shouldn't have regs to prevent over polluting, for very real health concerns. Again, not black and white. We've had these laws since the 70's. What the concern is that we have new taxation, and overbearing regulations that artificially drive up the price of energy for EVERYONE, solely because of the claims of MMGW.

 

[Everskyward]

Nobody is saying we shouldn't have regs to prevent over polluting, for very real health concerns. Again, not black and white. We've had these laws since the 70's. What the concern is that we have new taxation, and overbearing regulations that artificially drive up the price of energy for EVERYONE, solely because of the claims of MMGW.

I haven't noticed the price of the energy I use going up. In fact it has gone down. People who are using this as an excuse for the recent economics problems are barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Gmaper]

Yup. Just look at Gary, Indiana or Racine, Wisconsin. Back in "the day" their skies were blackened by the sweat and toil of all those high-paying union guys, forging steel and building tractors.

Now, the skies are clean and blue.

I'm sure that should there be another oil spill that this time reaches your beaches you won't be upset since oil is another product that we need for our economy. Oil is more important than clean beaches and it is certainly more important than the impact on a few local businesses, right?

 

[Anthony]

I haven't noticed the price of the energy I use going up. In fact it has gone down. People who are using this as an excuse for the recent economics problems are barking up the wrong tree.

Energy prices have gone up dramatically. This is without the new regulations, and legislation for cap and trade. Obama recently put a hold on the new coal regs just because of this issue. Kudos Mr. President! However, it is temporary, and there is the entire off shore drilling ban which is STILL in effect, forcing us to import yet more oil

 

[Everskyward]

Energy prices have gone up dramatically.

Maybe yours have but mine haven't. I agree that cap and trade was a stupid idea. I think that industry and government should come up with some negotiated level of acceptable emissions and if it is exceeded there should be fines. Much simpler than cap and trade.

 

[Henning]

Energy prices have gone up dramatically. This is without the new regulations, and legislation for cap and trade. Obama recently put a hold on the new coal regs just because of this issue. Kudos Mr. President! However, it is temporary, and there is the entire off shore drilling ban which is STILL in effect, forcing us to import yet more oil

Right, Look at board member compensation packages. When you retort that they are public traded companies and the stock holders make the money, I say "Yes, look who owns the vast majority of the stock."

I see the results of the levels of profits in the energy sector, and if we nationalized Energy as a Public Utility, the profits available there could fund all the basics of life, security and healthcare requirements. You could just pay a fair market value for energy that you absorb right now or hopefully less in the future and eliminate the majority of your taxes. It's like Nevada with one industry, only now The State is the House. Industry has proven itself unreliable to look out for our best interests. The profits are obscene, they truly are. When your personal assets include 2 billion dollars worth of boats, that's a lot. That's OUR ENERGY MONEY being spent by foreigners on foreign goods. The guy that got the personal A-380, that's us at the fuel pump. We could be a hydrogen exporting nation for the new fuel economy. We could get it rolling but you're all too damned concerened with idiocy. We need to get off oil and on hydrogen in the next 5 years. To not do it is idiocy. We do it like we did in WWII building all the infrastructure the energy industry has been raping us with since.

This time we sell the bonds and build the infrastructure but instead of handing it over to private industry, we run it as a public utility. You limit internal profit to 10&10 P&O to account for a normal rate of expansion, and sell on the energy market delivering both electricity and hydrogen at market rates. It could fund the basic needs of our nation and start a new industry and a New Age in America. We have the ability to provide completely safe nuclear power, and yes there is a way to dispose of the waste safely, you just drill a 30,000' deep well hole, drop 10,000' of waste down, cap 1000' of leaded concrete on top, back fill with whatever, you're done. The issue we have with waste storage is because we don't want to throw it away. It's mostly good material waiting for reprocessing. Think of a fuel pellet as a charcoal that grows a thick ash over a hot core, it insulates it and you want to get that ash off to get back to the heat. Now I'm not positive on this but I think the problem with reclaiming and reprocessing is that a byproduct of the process is "weapons grade" Plutonium and there's some moratorium or limit treaty that was signed.

The only problem we have with nuclear waste is political, it is not technical.

 

[Dan Thomas]

In the years leading up to Y2K, computer geeks started piping up about an impending problem....

...and then nothing happened.

Oh, something happened, alright. A lot of new computers were sold. A lot of generators were sold. A lot of survival food was sold. Bottled water. And on and on.

Y2K sure looks like something driven by a profit motive.

But global warming? Nahhh...


Dan

 

[mantakos]

... Y2K sure looks like something driven by a profit motive...

Clearly the bottled-water distributors teamed up with the generator manufacturers to bribe all the computer scientists to lie about this fictional "two digit year" thing in a massive conspiracy...
-harry

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Last time I researched this I couldn't find any examples of conclusive proof of an innocent person being put to death. We have numerous examples of those spared killing again. I'm willing to take my chances with the level of safeguards baked into the current system.

That's perfectly fine.

How do you feel about this discussion of global warming?

 

[Gmaper]

Oh, something happened, alright. A lot of new computers were sold. A lot of generators were sold. A lot of survival food was sold. Bottled water. And on and on.

Y2K sure looks like something driven by a profit motive.

But global warming? Nahhh...


Dan

For the computer mainframe manufacturer that I worked for it certainly was driven by a profit motive. Also a survival motive. I was a software engineer working on the file system and I can tell you that modifying massive amounts of code in a massive number of modules was not a fun task. We were ISO 9000 compliant and the processes involved in making and verifying changes are not trivial. I and most of the rest of the engineering staff got to work on "the day" and we were pleasantly surprised that there were so few problems attributable to our products. Unfortunately, some of our customers were not so well prepared.

 

[olasek]

The only problem we have with nuclear waste is political, it is not technical.

Yep!!

 

[denverpilot]

Ah yes. ISO9000.

"I guarantee I can screw up this product exactly the same well-documented way every time!"

The Firestone plant that produced all those deadly tires for Ford was ISO9000 certified.

Makes one wonder if they'd spent less time on the certification and more on making good quality tires if their customers wouldn't be DEAD, doesn't it?

 

[LDJones]

And what policy does this recommend? Put them to death quickly, before they're found innocent and set free?

I'm a little confused here. Does future crime imply guilt in past crime, or is it that future crime is proof of a failure to properly incarcerate or terminate for innocence in a past crime?
-harry

I understand your confusion. You're a liberal. But let me ask this: is there ANY circumstance in which the death penalty would be acceptable in your eyes? Some minimum number of unimpeachable witnesses to a heinous murder? An unrepentant confession to one or more murders? Or is this a blanket "sanctity of life" argument you're making?

 

[LDJones]

I don't think the concern is about "the earth". Some people want to make it about Mother Nature but it's really not, it's about us. I don't think there's any question that the climate is warming. The question is how much is human-caused and how much can we can change the course of what is happening. If we can't change it we at least need to be able to react to its effects when it does change. Personally I think anti-pollution laws are necessary even in the absence of climate change just for the sake of our health.

No argument there. I believe we have an obligation to not "poop in the pool" as one poster put it. But the argument over CO2 is the issue. Sorta like prohibiting exhaling in the pool in addition to not pooping in it.

 

[LDJones]

That's perfectly fine.

How do you feel about this discussion of global warming?

Being stuck in a northern climate, I'm highly supportive of it.

 

[JeffDG]

Right, Look at board member compensation packages. When you retort that they are public traded companies and the stock holders make the money, I say "Yes, look who owns the vast majority of the stock."

And just who does own the vast majority of the stock?

I know I actually did the research last time I saw this cannard flown, but it's not "insiders", it's mutual funds.

Let's take XOM for example.
From Yahoo! Finance: "% of Shares Held by All Insider and 5% Owners: 0%"

The largest individual holder (non mutual-fund) is Rex Tillerson. He held 1.5m shares when I looked, out of 8.019 billion shares outstanding (0.02%).

So, who does hold a "vast majority of the stock"?

 

[Henning]

I understand your confusion. You're a liberal. But let me ask this: is there ANY circumstance in which the death penalty would be acceptable in your eyes? Some minimum number of unimpeachable witnesses to a heinous murder? An unrepentant confession to one or more murders? Or is this a blanket "sanctity of life" argument you're making?

Sure, "Execution can be used during the commission of said crime in order that it may protect another's life from that crime, or in immediate retribution for that event. 'Blooded in the evidence'"

 

[Henning]

And just who does own the vast majority of the stock?

I know I actually did the research last time I saw this cannard flown, but it's not "insiders", it's mutual funds.

Let's take XOM for example.
From Yahoo! Finance: "% of Shares Held by All Insider and 5% Owners: 0%"

The largest individual holder (non mutual-fund) is Rex Tillerson. He held 1.5m shares when I looked, out of 8.019 billion shares outstanding (0.02%).

So, who does hold a "vast majority of the stock"?

Who has made the money off of Mutual Funds in the last 10 years? Certainly wasn't my parents.... So if they own the lions share of the stock, where are all these record profits going while the funds are showing such lackluster performance? Where is the money? I can show you Trillions of dollars a year of opulent excess that it buys, our energy money. I witness it daily.

 

[dmccormack]

In the years leading up to Y2K, computer geeks started piping up about an impending problem embedded in a lot of older software. As the end of the century got closer, the story got wings, everybody started talking about it, and companies all took on large efforts in testing and fixing and upgrading to ensure that they'd handle the transition just fine.

When Y2K rolled along, everybody held their breath... and then nothing happened. Some might conclude from this "Ha! What a bunch of hooey!". Some others might conclude "Well, that's what's supposed to happen, awareness rises and everybody takes corrective actions, and the end of the world is thus averted".

You might similarly conclude "Ha! All this hooey about particulate pollution!" Some others might conclude "Well, that's what's supposed to happen, awareness of the problem rose, corrective action was taken, and the level of particulate pollution is now much lower than it used to be."
-harry

Absolute utter and total nonsense.



There wasn't one other "computer geek" I knew in the industry who agreed with the dire predictions of Y2K. Not one.

We all knew what it was -- a power play by large corporations to open the floodgates to international labor, putting downward pressure on ever-increasing "computer geek" salaries.

 

[denverpilot]

Who has made the money off of Mutual Funds in the last 10 years?

The mutual fund companies and retirement plan "managers" mostly, in the form of management fees and transaction fees perfectly designed to leave just a little margin for making the investment look worth buying. Skimming at its finest.

All I've gotten from the paltry mutual fund offerings in my tax-deferred accounts is the tax deferral. Maybe a tiny percentage gain, but it rarely meets inflation let alone exceeds it. The tax deferral is significant to my personal plans so I'll play along. Otherwise they're a god-awful investment with just as much risk as individual stocks. Why? Herd mentality.

It takes very little to run the entire market up or down these days. Fundamentals are forgotten. The tail is wagging the dog now that government's fiscal policy trumps all business plans.

401K plans are particularly ponzi-schemish. The more people a company can get to participate, the more money the real earners (known as high-income earners in your company 401k plan) can tax-defer. Most people know nothing about the high-income caps nor how they're set. Don't know the rules of the game, prepare to be the sucker at the poker table.

Execs negotiate a salary that makes the most of that deferral, take the rest in via stock grants/options to themselves personally, and usually a trust fund for every child, and one for the spouse. They basically make sure to skim off as much capital every good quarter as their CFO deems the Street won't be cranky about, in the form of multiple income streams. Never just one, so they don't appear greedy.

It's a complex game documented in the 10K and other filings, which anyone can read on EDGAR, but few do.

It cost HP $80 million to oust three CEOs. Think the company could have used the capital more wisely? Think the Board even cares?

The above is about public companies, of course. Cooked books, tasty just the way the Street likes. Don't stand out from any other company in your "sector". We'll make sure you get A+ ratings so mutuals can invest.

Privately owned? All bets are off. You'll never see the real books unless you're an insider. Being an insider at a privately held firm is big big money.

 

[Henning]

The mutual fund companies and retirement plan "managers" mostly, in the form of management fees and transaction fees perfectly designed to leave just a little margin for making the investment look worth buying. Skimming at its finest.

All I've gotten from the paltry mutual fund offerings in my tax-deferred accounts is the tax deferral. Maybe a tiny percentage gain, but it rarely meets inflation let alone exceeds it. The tax deferral is significant to my personal plans so I'll play along. Otherwise they're a god-awful investment with just as much risk as individual stocks. Why? Herd mentality.

It takes very little to run the entire market up or down these days. Fundamentals are forgotten. The tail is wagging the dog now that government's fiscal policy trumps all business plans.

401K plans are particularly ponzi-schemish. The more people a company can get to participate, the more money the real earners (known as high-income earners in your company 401k plan) can tax-defer. Most people know nothing about the high-income caps nor how they're set. Don't know the rules of the game, prepare to be the sucker at the poker table.

Execs negotiate a salary that makes the most of that deferral, take the rest in via stock grants/options to themselves personally, and usually a trust fund for every child, and one for the spouse. They basically make sure to skim off as much capital every good quarter as their CFO deems the Street won't be cranky about, in the form of multiple income streams. Never just one, so they don't appear greedy.

It's a complex game documented in the 10K and other filings, which anyone can read on EDGAR, but few do.

It cost HP $80 million to oust three CEOs. Think the company could have used the capital more wisely? Think the Board even cares?

The above is about public companies, of course. Cooked books, tasty just the way the Street likes. Don't stand out from any other company in your "sector". We'll make sure you get A+ ratings so mutuals can invest.

Privately owned? All bets are off. You'll never see the real books unless you're an insider. Being an insider at a privately held firm is big big money.

Right, this is the other group of guys buying Yachts, but the ones with the real major money are there with family money. The "Current Generation" Wall Street guys do very well by anyones standards, but only a handfull are "1%" people, though the best Wall Street guys have 1% clients. These guys are the 130'-170' yacht guys. $12-$45MM boat guys. The $1BB boat guys are oil and energy "Barons", Sultans, whatever you want to call them. I think the US Taxpayer should be allowed to start competing for that dollar and adding it to OUR treasury to run our country. I'm all for full ramping up and exporting energy and hydrogen fuel cell production to make us a leading exporter. We need to rethink and restructure what we want government to do for us, because right now it is not serving us well. We put all this money in, we should get a good Return on Investment. Right now we ship all our money overseas for energy, THAT IS WHAT IS WRONG WITH OUR ECONOMY!!! It's not illegal immigration. Exporting our money for energy and securing that energy is also the cause of our Terrorism issue and all the expense we are going therough prosecuting this war which takes fuel which goes right back to KSA and the Mid East which goes right back to fund terrorists whose main complaint is that we infidels are in KSA!!! If we just leave the area we lose all that expense. We don't even need to buy fuel to bring the men or equipment home. Just have everybody come to Tel Aviv and drop of the keys to the equipment in exchange for a free ride home on ElAl. Say "Thanks, all yours" and just let Israel take over the job of securing the region. They're not going to kill anyone we wouldn't and the oil will be worthless soon.

During WWII we sold War Bonds that paid for the Manhattan Project and to fund what has grown into the petrochemical industry we have now. That is the scale of a project it took to usher in the Atomic Age, it will require a similar investment program to usher in the Hydrogen Age. Last time it ended WWII, This time it will end our War on Terror.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Being stuck in a northern climate, I'm highly supportive of it.

Do you, or don't you, buy into global warming as discussed in this thread, which has been derived in a manner practically identical to the way by which the death penalty is imposed?

If "no," why not? Why would you be OK with one, but not the other?

 

[LDJones]

Do you, or don't you, buy into global warming as discussed in this thread, which has been derived in a manner practically identical to the way by which the death penalty is imposed?

If "no," why not? Why would you be OK with one, but not the other?

I fail to see any connection between the two. But for the record, no I do not buy into the AGW nonsense. Thankfully global warming hasbreduced the ice sheet the once was a mile thick over my home to the point that we only slip and slide for a few months out of the year. Anything we can do to reduce that is a plus....but I'm not holding my breath.

As for the death penalty, those who show no regard for the life of another (which is the only time we impose the death penalty), and deprive them of their life, should automatically forfeit their life. A very simple principle and consistent with a pro life position.

 

[mantakos]

I understand your confusion. You're a liberal. But let me ask this: is there ANY circumstance in which the death penalty would be acceptable in your eyes?.,..

Interesting. Who are you arguing with, me or a stereotype? Have I expressed an opinion here, or simply expressed facts? Are those facts false? Why would you react to the expression of facts with insults?
-harry