timesjoke

No, it is you who is not getting the point, you are trying to make leaving your tiny children alone in a room where everyone is scared less of spontanious fire erupting without warning sound the same as leaving your nike unatended. They are not the same and the level of responsibility cannot be matched, so your example cannot be considered to anyone with a brain. No, this is nothing like the mccain case, there is a monumental diffefence between the care and responsibility a parent should show for protecting their children from harm compared to caring for a bike. You do not leave children in harms way if your a good parent. No, it is about responsibility. At the very least these parents had a responsibility to keep their defensiveless children safe. You said yourself everyone in that place thought it would explode into flame without notice, why would any parent leave children unattended in a situation liek that? Nope, there is plenty of evidence to show they are very accurate, as you said in another post, they are proven to be 98% accurate, the 2% you speak of are chalked up to things like tampering. Bullets are not 100%. They are less then 75% effective to stop someone with one shot but they are still the best way to defend yourself. The point I am making is would a geed parent take a 98% chance to help find their missing child? Your damn right they would, my children are worth a 2% risk. Wrong, the only thing that can make a test ineffective is certain mental conditions and drugs. A trial run would be very effective for a guilty person because if they fail with the slightly lesser stress of a controled test, they are guranteed to fail during the real thing, and that has been my point from the start, your just pretending not to understand the concept. Again, you are wrong time and again, a person "always" reacts in an involuntary way to telling a lie, even in a social setting, relaxed and secure. I see people do it almost every day, that is what helps me be so successful at selling stuff, I always know when people are bluffing, so I call their bluff and win every time. Again, that is one of the factors for doing a "safe" test. I agree there may be a reduction to the "level" of involuntary reaction to telling a lie in a controlled test, but if you cannot pass that, you are guranteed to fail the test that is for the record. But your wrong, a person cannot just turn off their involuntary responses to telling lies. A lie is a lie and when you are strapped with all the sensors and asked questions, it does not matter if it is the police or someone your paying, it is still going to test if your telling lies or not and everyone is scared of being discovered telling lies. Think of it another way, if she is guilty of killing her child, and she is taking a "safe" test, she would still be concerned aboyt those people knowing she lied and concerned that information may get leaked to the press. So there is still significant stress for the guilty. It is not going anywhere now, so a failed test could change nothing. The investigators already see them as the prime suspects and a failed test cannot be used in court against them, and as you already admitted, there is only a 2% chance of a false positive, no, any true caring parent would take the test to help their child, if not to clear themselves of suspician. But that is because your a criminal, you think like a criminal and you believe they may ask you questions that would incriminate you in other thengs. Your a drug user, you have cause to be scared of answering questions honestly to investigators. It is easy for you to say now that you would turn your back on doing everything to help find your daughter because your not in that situation, but if you were in this situation and you knew more police strength could be directed tword looking for a stranger if you just took this 98% chance, I believe you would give your daughter that 98% chance. I know I would give my children that 98% chance. It was you being that way tword me, not the other way around, maybe you need to learn to be civil, point fingers at yourself before you try pointing them at anyone else.

But one has nothing to do with another, that is your problem, you are comparing apples and oranges. There is a difference between crims persued after the fact and those happening in your face. If a cop had said "don't move" to a violent criminal and the criminal did move against the order given to him, there is a good chance they would still be dead, Cops kill criminals all the time without a trial. The question is should the average person be allowed to stop criminals from performing criminal acts if they "want" to stop them? Most states still allow for a citizens arrest, in that you can detain a person who you believe has committed a criminal act. If the person resists arrest, what then? Do criminals commit crimes just to humbly and quietly take their punnishment if cought, or do they tend to try and "get away"? The possition you are holding is a criminal, an illegal immigrant violent criminal's life is more important than safety, security, and possessions of non-illegals and non-criminals. I do not agree. The only people with a choice are the criminals, they choose to put themselves into harms way and to disrupt, destroy, and ruin lives through their actions. Even if a person has insurance, it only covers actual depreciated value, not replacement value and many don't even have insurance so they are screwed. Why do you want society to just stand back and be helpless victims to the bullies of the world?

A state of mind does not form by snapping your fingers, it is a slow and deliberate process. By constantly bombarding our children with certain kinds of messages, we help to form their state of mind. Sure, these panties seem like a small thing but we need to pull back and look at the entire picture, not one brush stroke to see what is happening. Do we really want our little girls believing that they have an ATM machine between their legs at such a young age? Do we really want our little girls thinking they need to have a "santa" or sugar daddy to take care of them?

Clearly you have no idea how this works. Any lie, under any circumstances will get a reaction the machine can detect as long as the person is not mentally ill or under the effect of drugs. Again, you know nothing about how these machines work, reactions to telling a lie are involuntary. Yes, more pressure will add a greater reaction, but the reaction is there anywhere. I believe in a maching seeing a reaction in temperature, resperation, pulse, muscle tension, etc... over a person who can make their mouth say anything. I also believe in a dog responding to certain things over the same mouth saying whatever lie is handy. Machines and dogs know nothing about the lies of man, they just do what their trained and designed to do, they allow men to play the games. I did not insult you, don't insult me please. First of all I am very dissapointed in you reducing the life of a child to mean nothing more than a bike sitting on a sidewalk unattended, very dissapointed. Our children are more important than a bike or a car but people like you try to devalue life and make rediclious comparisons like this to make excuses for those who kill, or cause death and get them little or no punnishment. Let's instead say you went to a strange Country and at a place where everyone is paranoid of fire erupting from nowhere you leave your tiny children unattended and later claim people kidnapped your child from that place you left them unattended and unwatched. There is no evidence of an intruder and many areas of your story does not add up under scruitiny. You first agree to a lie detector but later refuse, and there is evidence of a possible killing. This is what happened, and it seems very fishy to me, no matter how much you try to justify their actions. All statistics agree that parents and close family are most likely in crimes involving children. A lie detector test could allow the investigators to feel safe dropping their attention away from the parents but the parents refuse "after" first agreeing to do it, something happened to change their mind, and it was "after" they had plenty of time to take a private test and see if they could pass it. No "innocent" parent would refuse to put more attention on other directions if they had it in their power. The evidence keeps piling up against them, I'm sorry Jhony, but there is absolutely nothing that points at anyone but the parents in this case, it is depressing to say that, but wishing a stranger did this does not make it true.

FOXNews.com - Muslim Brides Undergoing Painful Vaginal Surgery to 'Re-virginize' for Wedding Nights - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News It seems more and more stories like this are popping up all over the world.

It says right there they were in the juniors department, clearly targeting young girls. You cannot refute the message, they use Sants to get what they want, who is playing Santa for the little girls? Dress is driven by peers and parents. Girls mimick their mothers most of the time and if their mother is wearing thongs, then the young girls will want to wear what they see their mother wearing. Size 1? I would be scared of breaking her, poor little thing. I prefer women, not little girls. The smallest I ever dated was a size 4 and that is only because she had big fake boobs, lol. Besides, when I buy stuff for my women I don't look like a child molester, imagine how you would look trying to find sexy undies at the little girls department, lol.

Are you telling me you cannot understand the concept of their lawyer getting an outside agency to conduct a private test to see how it goes? There are many private groups out there who do tests on company employees to easily have a test performed ahead of time and be sure of what the result would be "before" you do it in an official capacity. Are you kidding me? I already posted my understanding of how it works in this thread and now you want to talk to me like a 5 year old? I am fully understanding of how the detector works and can even use involuntary cues by people to do a test of my own without the machine. Those of us with the training can easily tell when the average person is telling lies. Fear for telling a lie drives most people, it is that fear that causes the reactions. Many people try to use downers to fool the test or a sharp object in their show so they can cause themselves pain to fool the machine. The point is, barring mental illness or other forms of manipulation on the test, it is a very accurate tool and if the parents could pass the test, then almost all the attention of investigators would be taken away. Would any loving parent take the test to help get more attention put on other areas? Only if their innocent. Part of blaming them is punnishment. They are 100% to blame for the death of their child, wither directly or indirectly because they did not give a amn for their childs safety. Part of the mystery is solved, they are the only people who could have kept this child safe, and they refused to do that. Unless some evidence comes along showing someone else was involved, the parents are also the only people (so far) who could have been responsible for this child's death. Either an accident or not, they are the only people with the time and ability to erase this child without a trace. You keep saying what "might" have happened, and who "could" have done something but in reality, we cannot look at things as possible without some evidence to back your assumptions up. There is nothing to lead investigators away from the parents (so far) but again, the parents both passing a lie detector test would definately give the investigators a good reason to look elsewhere, too bad the parents refuse to give that good reason to the investigators.

.185 But shooting the sheep was very intoxicating, now I am craving lamb chops.

Being illegal in the first place means they were just adding to their long list of crimes against our society. By choosing robbery as their way to make a living, they were involved in a very potentially violent profession, a profession that caused a lot of fear and damage to every American. The potential to have a confrontation as a burgler is very high, even the 9/11 operator assumed they were armed and likely to kill hero Joe. We can say one thing for certain, these two hardoned criminals will never commit a crime against society again. No, they most likely died blamming society for "forcing" them into that kind of life in the first place. Most criminals see themselves as heros against "the man". Government is bad, freedom to do what you want is good.......

I am sorry Jhony, but you are doing the exact same thing you claim we are doing, you want to slam and belittle all the police involved in this case without one shread of evidence against them but we are simply saying that these parents are at the minimum the prime suspects and are guilty of child endangerment that resulted in the death of their child. The only evidence available (not much) points directly at them. There is not one shread of evidence pointing to a stranger taking the child, so until that evidence shows up, I will continue to say the parents are the only ones who had the time and ability to make this body dissapear without a trace. A child is dead because of the parents lack of giving a dude, if you cannot put any blame on these parents, then there is no real point in talking to you about this anymore. These police are just like you and me, they are not monsters who make up charges against innocent people just to get their "rocks" off. They can only chase down clues that are there. Obviously they will put the majority of their attention tword the most likely suspects until a "reason" is discovered to stop considering the parents as the most likely suspects, passing lie detector tests could go a long way to letting the police feel confortable to put all their attention elsewhere. I agree, clearly they thought they could fool a lie detector test, most likely with drugs (they are doctors) so they had a "test" done in private and discovered they could not pass it so changed their minds. Most states in Amnerica do not allow the result of lie tests in court but that does not stop the innocent from taking the tests to clear their name with the investigators. You see, it does not matter what is admissable in court because the test tells the investigators they are wasting their time on that person, it frees up time to chase other possibilities. Investigators may want to verify the test with their own examinor, but after that, there is no point wasting more time in a direction that cannot give results.

And the reason to be concerned is?????????????????????

I bet you are both dead on, if they could gather more support with the lie detector, they would but being as they refuse, I agree with you two, that was already removed as an option.

A lie detector can only detect a "reaction" to the question given to you, nothing more. The concept is your going to react more when you tell a lie then when you are telling the truth. Any of us that have told lies and had that funny feeling in your stomach knows what I am talking about. The failure rates talked about are concerning people who either have no reactions (certain mental conditions can account for this and drugs can also do this) or their reactions are not consistant for some reason so it makes the test less than accurate. Certain things can be done by the tester to try and lead the subject to certain reactions but a good test is very reliable. If I was considered as a suspect to the killing or abduction of my child and I was innocent, I would beg for a test, maybe I would ask for an independant group to do it, but I would do it to take unneeded attention away from me and get it directed tword the real criminals who harmed my child. But if I was guilty, I would run from the test like the plague.

The message was on panties, who is intended to read the message? Don't be fooled, they were saying that little girls can get what they want without credit cards and being as Santa is not real, who is to play Santa for the girl to use as a crdit card? Clearly modern times has admitted to the way things have turned into a woman having an ATM machine between her legs when we have it being written on little girls panties.

I am sure all the families of the 9/11 attack would have a very vocal opposition to this comment. Most Balcks are killed by Blacks, this is fact, but from the point of view for people blending in, how many Americans kill their children for refusing to wear a face covering? The start of this topic has been about how Muslims refuse to blend into our established society, how even now it is still considered customary for some Muslims to kill a daughter/sister if she refuses to cover her face. How the ACLU fights to remove Christian prayer and eny referance to God but completely ignores anything about Muslims.

Interesting that over 80% of people also want stricter controls over things like abortion also. We are no longer a nation of democracy, we are a Nation of forced political correctness. The liberals are ruining the Nation, it is all about "looking" right and pamparing criminals while the masses take it up the shorts.

What the hell are you talking about? It is a law, like any other law, why is it leagal to kill someone to defend your life when if the situation were different you could get the electric chair? You keep running in circles trying to make the most silly comparisons you can think of to try and make this law sound bad. I think it is a great law and we need all States to pass it because I have had enough of the liberal babby sitters trying to make criminals sound like victims. These were bad guys who could have avoiding getting killed by not being criminals. It was their choice to be violent criminals, even the 911 operator told Hero Hoe that if he wnt out there he would get shot, so obviously even the 911 operator assumed these criminals to be violent criminals. Why can't people like you put any blame on criminals?

But that is the problem I am having with what you are claiming. You have said time and again that every police officer over there are liers. You keep making up all sorts of excuses and trying to streach the limits of reason for excuses when the story that is most likely based on statistics and does not need any twisting of the information we have at hand is that the parents are involved in some way, either an accident they are covering up or something much worse. With this story, we don't need to imagins hundreds of corrupt police are all conspiring against these two people. With this story we don't need to make excuses for why cadavar dogs are not reliable, or why they hit on a car rented 4 weeks later. With this story we don't need to figure out an innocent way dogs could hit on the appartment. With this story we don't need to imagine why somone would use difficult entry methods or why the storys of the dinners don't match with the weighters. With this story, everything lines up, everything looks like the parents were involved, now this bring up an old saying: "If it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, ant it quacks like a duck........there is a good chance it is a duck." For me, I am just a nobody making a deduction based on the available information and will not feel bad or good if new informations comes available to prove these parents innocent, to be honest, I have already said several times that most parents would rather believe a stranger does these bad things over a parent anyway. I ask you the same question, while we have questioned the integrity and truthfulness of two people, you have maligned hundreds of police, and all of us for even daring to offer our opinions on this subject. What will be your reaction if we are proven correct and all your personal attacks are proven to be wrong?

Not in this day and age of the online dictonary, the value of words dropped considerably after every lazy idiot could look them up so easily. And you have proof that every police officer there is telling lies? Your swinging that paintbrush of yours pretty wildly against people who could not have stopped the death of this little girl but get pissed at me and others for putting any blame on the two adults in this situation that "could" have prevented this situation. I think your priorities are a little screwed up sir. You can doubt whatever you like but you cannot prove anything is lie so until you can prove it, their proof stands, the cadavar dogs did hit on dead bodies. It is impossible for them to hit on clothes from mrs.cain, for two reasons, the time seperating the two periods and the fact that it is impossible for her to be wearing clothing exposed to dead rotting flesh, you see, doctors wear gowns that stay at the hospital, if she was capable of taking that chemical away with her, then she could also cary diseases and such. It is called biohazzard my friend, do you have any idea the lawsuits that come from contaminating the outside world with things from a hospital? She would not have the ability to leave the premisis with any contaninates on them, so there goes your idea........ Already proven to be impossible. They wear gowns, there is no direct contact between dead bodies at hospitals/morgs and doctors civilien clothing. Not with cadavar dogs, it is like being pregnant, yes or no. But they did "choose" to put their children at risk. Putting them in jail and protecting their remaining children from a similar lack of good judgement would be prudent in my opinion. Every bad example has a result, it a a case of baby steps, one little step at a time we are making the death of children meaningless, the first step was to make it socially acceptable to kill babies in the womb, now they are working on small children, we will see how long it takes. Good question for her parents, they were the last we can prove had contact with her. Don't play games with it, just answer the question, if irresponsibility from a stranger caused the death of your child, how much punnishment would you believe is fair for that unintentional death? Remember, this is choice, the parents had an easy choice to get the babysitter but refused to do it. At the least we are talking gross negligance and child endangerment. Not really, they would know the layout, that is true but still no way to conceal a child, dead or alive. People notice when an employee is there on their day off for example, no not a worker, I doubt that is possible. There is no evidence of an abduction, so no reason to run off into the distance twisting motivations for something that never happened as far as we know. It is not just that, there is approaching the room undetected at a popular and busy resort and then leave again with an unwilling child and not one person notice anything, no, I do not see that as possible at first glance. Personal attacks on someone you know nothing about have nothing to do with this. A resort town cannot exist without at least marginal decent police to keep the peace. If they were as bad as you claim crime would be out of control there, no they are not that bad. You just need them to be evil and incompetant to fulfil your assumtions.

FOXNews.com - Man Douses 2 Women With Gasoline, Sets Them on Fire During Robbery, Police Say - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News All he wanted was money and the bad people refused to give him enough money so he was forced to burn those women, he had no choice. And the guy who tried to help the burning women should have minded his own business right?

I have several muslim friends, mostly Kurds but a couple others. Sect does play a big part in their attitudes but many other factors do as well. Most of the private schools and "camps" run by muslims in North America and Europe have very strong ties to the Wahhabis structure, Google it. How many amish are planning terrorist attacks on us? But they do blend in in certain ways, look at the lights on their carriages for an example.

Yep, but I am used to your inability to stick to topics when they are not going your way by now. You either turn to personal attacks or changing the subject. The idea of America is the "melting pot" a blend of different ideas and religions. The Mulsims do not want to blend in, they want to change America to suit them and the wackos at the ACLU and politicians are frozen into inaction from their need to maintain the PC appearance.

If you don't care enough about your children to watch them, why should anyone else care about them? Obviously you are using the standard "I can't argue with facts so I will resort to rediclious exagerations" method but to a certain degree, even your stupid comeback is dead on. If not the parents, then who? If the parents who created the children do not love them enough to truly care for them, who will care enough for them? I get so depressed when people talk like the world should be one big daycare facility where everyone is pampered and taken care of and never have to take responsibility for themselves or anything else for that matter. It is time to wake up, the world is a dangerious place, if you do not take care of your children, something bad will most likely happen to them, stop acting surprised when your irresponsibility leads to bad results.

I will take Wez's dogding of the points I gave as him giving up again and still trying to make everything an anti-American, anti-government discussion. But, as yet, he still has never commented on topic in the thread. So I will again attempt to direct him to the topic. Why is it western society must completely change to allow Muslims to live with us? Why is Muslim prayer being given a pass by groups like the ACLU in public schools for example? They attack any whisper of Christian involvement in schools but refuse to say anythign against Muslim prayer.

Making dead child jokes about "real" dead children was my only point, I am glad you can now see where I was comming from. The dogs know nothing of politics and police ploys, all they know is if there was a dead body there or not and to give their signal,. There are other signs that can be there if an outside person is involved, my main point was there is nothing to indicate a reason to look elsewhere. As I have already said, every investigation must have a starting point and then you follow the evidence available from there. There is no evidence supporting an abduction, but there is evidence showing a death, not murder, but yes, a death. The dogs hit on a dead body, unless there was another dead body in that room, it must have been the little girl. They contributed to the death of their child, and yes, that means they should go to prison. Again, where is even one shread of evidence to support an abduction? The only evidence is for a death, not a murder, but still a death, so calling it an abduction when there is nothign to support that assumption is disingenuous, but I give you credit for using a .25 cent word. Again, bad parenting becomming common does not excuse bad parenting. If parents do not care about their children enough to show a little concern for their safety, that was their choice. The children do not have the luxery of forcing the parents to give a . To quote Vin Diesel "It don't matter if you win by an inch or a mile, winning is winning" The distance involved does not matter, only that they were irresponsible and caused the child's death through their lack of taking responsibility. The child had no choice in this situation, only the parents has a choice, and their choice was to cause the death of their child through neglect. The punnishment you would ask from a stranger causing the death of your child through neglect would be fair, so tell us, what would you ask for in that case? I already knew that, but thanks for your acknoledgment. I already did, the time element is the biggest problem, a stranger that knows nothing about the layout of the home, the time shedules of the involved parties, what might happen, all things are chaos for a stranger and makes it almost impossible to pull off the perfect crime. I though you believed it was only an abduction, not a violent offense? You see, you keep trying to twist different kinds of statistics together for seperate kinds of perpetrators. There is death evidence with the cadavar dogs, death to a young child in a strange Country is going to fall on the parents as the most likely cause, either directly or by accident. for a stranger, killing a child is a very specific action by a perpetrator, for him to focus down on this child to kill her and him not know her could only mean a serial killer, a Ted Bundy kind of person. We would see other similar acts either before or after, to pull it off that cleanly, clearly shows he is not new to the art, new serials do tend to be sloppy, but learn to perfect themselves as they kill more. So, in my opinion, the parents had something to do with the death of their child, or we have a serial killer. There is no evidence supporting a serial, so I lean tword the parents. Hell no, not if there is no evidence taking me that way. The rule is you follow the evidence, sure you keep your eyes open for anything but you only follow evidence. Even serials leave some trace, some bit of evidence, many cases they want to be followed, they want credit for their actions. Either way, you bang on the elements of the case, most criminals have some kind of alibis and through hard police work, those alibis get proven wrong, think about it, if they kill and cover up the death of their child, why not tell a few lies? No evidence is evidence my friend. For example, you have a murder weapon but you have no prints on it, this tells us that it was cleaned before use and the killer wore gloves, or the weapon was cleaned after the act. This distinction can prove premeditated murder over say manslaughter or even self-defense. I am not making any assumptions, I am making a theory about what I feel happened based on the available evidence. It is you that is ignoring the available evidence and making assumptions about there being a stranger involved when there is not one shread of proof to support that assumption.