timesjoke

And that has been my point all along. With everyone all claiming their oppressed for even the most rediclious crap, all oppression is seen as the same, very minor crap. The average person cannot seperate real oppression from a group just looking for some attention and exagerating (most fit this description). I will answer this in the same mental attitude it was posted: I know you are but what am I?

It is sad a serious topic like this can get this kind of dark humor. I was seriously dissapointed to see it take this turn.

I.W.S. Please stop taking this arguement of yours against the Texas law to the extremes just to make a point. Remember, the law would require the person show support for his claim the people were stealing. This goes to my point in the oppression thread. People like you blow everything into such massively out of proportion comparisons. Great point. Being as I.W.S. claims even an thief is more important than my 60inch plasma television, clearly our government has failed to protect it's citizens property.

All my kids are involved in martial arts, they all (including my 7 year old) ride dirt bikes and quads, only the 7 year old has not shot a gun, they ride horses, fish, camp, we go deep sea fishing several times a year, the list is endless but almost everything we do has some measure of risk. My daughter (almost 9) has completely gone nuts over Kendo (way of the sword) and I was all for it until I found out how much the gear and shinai would cost. Not to mention the hand made swords she wants me to buy her. Anyway, my point was that with risk, comes character. If we try to raise our kids in a protective bubble, they will grow up to be spiritless, devoid of a spark that makes them truly unique. With danger, we learn to expand our limits. In short it is called risk/reward. Without risk, no reward.

I agree, while those that require a 100% gurantee will keep their hands in theor pockets and be killed, I prefer to act in a proactive way based on the most likely reality. Using just the Iran rulers own words, he clearly says he is in search of nuclear weapons to remove the Jews from the world. Why not take him at his word in this reguard? The only time he says something different is when there are new sanctions about to be imposed on him. All other times he is defiant and very solid in his desire. That said, I would not insert troops, I would simply bomb them into the stone age so they have something other then killing Jews on their minds.

Nope, I did not see anywhere that the guy was stealing, only that he was shooting at people. Again, if people had guns on their person when criminals like this start shooting at them, they could shoot back. The entire reason guys like this idiot goes to a mall to shoot people is he feels fairly safe that these people are like sitting ducks, all unarmed easy to kill victims. If it was considered normal for the same area to be filled with armed citizens, he would not have chosen that area for his act. As far as protecting possessions is concerned, you say an illegal alien breaking into homes and stealing property has a greater worth to society than my 60inch plasma tv that I worked hard for to earn and enjoy. I dissagree, I feel my tv will provide endless enjoyment to me, my family, and my friends while these scumbags will only hurt society with fear, lost possessions, and massive increases in insurance premiums for all Americans.

True, just a system big enough to take all cases to trial would cost so much money I could not even imagine the cost. Being able to plea offenders down to things like probation and avoid the trial, prison care, etc... does save a lot of money in the short run but I feel the lower penalties encourage people to do crimes they may not do if they had a reasonable expectation of doing real time for the crime.

I have always like this : "Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe." While the origin of this is in doubt, the concept is truly interesting.

When I was much younger I remember reading somewhere a definition that has stuck with me my entire life: "A person is a representation of his lifetime experiences, and how he dealt with each of them." How we decide to face events is important to how we develop as a person. If we play games with the reality of death and try to pretend it is not reality with children, that will change who our children become as well. I am not saying that we need to sit our 3 year olds down and talk about Darfur, but we should allow them the ability to see small realities like the eventual end of all life.

The double standard for killing a fetus is well established. A woman can do it, a man cannot. As far as forcing a woman to do something with her body, that is not what anyone wants to do. The woman already did what she wanted to do with her body, she had irresponsible and unprotected sex with her body and wants to kill the result of her mistake. All I want is for women to face the responsibility for their actions instead of killing an innocent life to cover it up. Most abortions are from women who already have at least one child already and have never been married so they are not stuipd girls who don't know how babies are made or what can be done to prevent getting pregnant. Over 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient). About 14% of all abortions in the United States are paid for with public funds, virtually all of which are state funds. 16 states (CA, CT, HI, ED, IL, MA , MD, MD, MN, MT, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VT, WA and WV) pay for abortions for some poor women. My tax money should not be used to kill innocent life.

Plea bargans are a reality because there is no possible way to take all accused people to court for trial. Our system does not have that capability. In Canada, the courts have become so over crowded they have given over much of the family law processes up to local churches (with consent from both parties) to try and relieve some of the burdon. It seems to me the more modern and educated our societies get, the more crime we have as a result. I say we go back to being stupid but hard working and respectful people.

And saved lives. Cops can only "respond" to things and being as there are so few of them compared to the total population, it is very unlikely one will ever be around when things like this start.

Lucky S.O.B.

It is not logical to "assume" only strangers could make successful crimes like these. It is logical that being as most people who get busted doing these crimes are related to the victims, then that trend should follow into crimes unsolved. What you are talking about is an assumption, without the case being sloved, we do not know the relationships but we do know with all crimes that the most successful criminals are those that plan more, how has more time to plan something like this other then the close friends/relatives? My point was that being as most crimes involving children are committed by family and close friends, and the parents are the only ones who fit that description, obviously it is reasonable to focus 90% of the attention to that direction. Time spent looking at lower priority possibilities is warrented, but not a main concern in cases like this where so often strangers have nothing to do with them. I still do not agree witht he stranger thing, I am sorry but it is hard enough to do a crime like this but the stress and fear involved with someone unfamilure with times, areas, schedules, room layouts, and the unforseen make it very difficult for a complete stranger to pull off something like this without leaving any evidence at all of their being there. You cannot prove any of that, most studies show that over 80% of women deal with severe depression after pregnancy, humans are a mess and still most of the harm done to children are from those that they trust, I am sorry but that can only be the parents in this case. Unlikely is when it is a very low chance compared to the average, in this case the average is massivley larger then any other percentage, so yes, it is unlikely that a stranger was involved. So if what you say is true, then a stranger was acting on impulse too and also faced with the fact that they must have made a mistake. What makes these people so different then the normal parents who are faced with this kind of thing is they are both highly educated doctors where most homes may only have one professional. There is no weak link to crack, they are too smart for the police in this case. My beliefe that an overdose was possible does not remove their critical thinking abilities doctors are trained to have. They could have killed their child by accidental overdose and still be capable of proper planning and execution to cover it up. So anyone with an experience greater then your own in certain areas must be a lier if they do not agree with you? There go the personal attacks again, what is it with those that are so unsure of themselves that they must strike out at those who do not agree with them? I am well trained in many areas of law enforcement and even certified to teach things like defensive tactics and weapons but I only helped in a few investigations being as it was not very exciting to me, you can believe me or not but your belief does not change my experience my friend. So you feel it is reasonable to call all these people liers and you know nothing about any of them but you also feel it is reasonable to ignore the most likely suspects in cases like this in favor of looking for a stranger when there is no evidence of a stranger. Interesting. But you also cannot transfur these smells indefinately, they must be on you, not just around you to transfer. By the way, you do not the doctors wear gloves and scrubbs when handling dead bodies right? Kinda difficult for the dogs to respond to something still sitting on the items in the trash thousands of miles away, not on her body. An indictment does not mean guilt just like being aquitted for murder does not make you innocent in reality. O.J. Simpson killed two people reguardless of the evidence or how it was presented. DNA samples are taken many ways, most often by swabbing the inside cheek, not gathering hair that can be tested for possible drug induced sleep so parents can go out. And yet you completely ignore the statistics of parents or close relatives/friends being responsible for over 90% of all crimes against children, imagine that. Not my house, I have locks that cannot be "bumped" and my dogs will eat you before you ever get within reach of my door, but I see your point, the only thing you are forgetting is you will leave some evidence of your being there. You cannot enter a home and snatch kids without leaving some trace of your being there, but somehow the only evidence of people being there was the parents. I am not sure of that judicial system, but in America, any prosecuter would be very scared of trying a case on only circumstancial evidence, and this being so pushed by the press would make it even more difficult. No, unless better evidence comes up, they will not be tried. You are right, lies are not evidence, but neither is nothing, and nothing is exactly what points to a stranger, an absence of evidence is not evidence as you keep trying to say. While there is not much, there is a small amount pointing tword the parents and that combined with most children being harmed by someone close to them makes them the prime suspect until some evidence comes along to show someone else did it, but even without that, they are still guilty of child endangerment, that is a slam dunk, we have all the proof we need to clearly show that these parents should not have put these kids into harms way.

Personal attacks will get you nowhere, I do not let that tactic divert me from the subject as those that use them intend, so please try to stay away from this kind of thing. I respect your opinion but I dissagree, we all work to provide for our families, to live a decent life, to simply be free but as long as you feel it is okay to let robbers go free if there is a potential for harming them makes us more of a victim then these criminals could ever do. Again, that is you opinion and I see it otherwise. Crimnals are being allowed to ruin everyone elses lives through their actions. Just think about how scared the neighbor kids are after a robbery. These ruthless and hardened criminals make everyone feel scared who are exposed to their actions and that level of driven fear is wrong. I am not so much supporting the protection of things as I am supporting the removal of scum who would create such a environment where everyone in America is scared of being robbed, where our kids grow up in a society where people are defending criminals and ignoring the real harm they do every day. The problem is statistics agree with me. A home invasion/robbery is not shop lifting, for a person to make that big of a step into crime he is seriously over the edge. Home invasions have a serious risk of confrontations, these confrontations end up with violence more often than not so every criminal wanting to do this kind of crime is very dangerious indeed. A robber not busted will rob again, and is most likely committing many other crimes as well (drugs being the most common to robbery) Real crime happens about 7 to 1 compared to fraud in case you were curious, so clearly I am concentrating on the biggest issue, too bad your only interested in personal attacks against me who does not believe what you believe. I have said many times my issue with robbers is the mental state it takes to be that kind of criminal and how removing them is very good for society. Don't think your alone there brother, I pay more out in exwife support than most Americans make in full time jobs. I don't really mind paying to support my kids, I just hate it when she uses my child support to get cosmetic surgery, etc..... My point was that these guys want to make a living through crime, they are not like you and me and do not think the way we do. You cannot stop criminals with pretty words, you must give them a good reason to not be a criminal, and people being allowed to shoot them is a darn good deterrant.

There are only a few thousand politicians while just the criminals that were busted and are in prison number in millions, now let's consider most home invasions/robberies are never solved, and we start learning that the real scum are out there making us all victims through things like increased insurance costs. Why not? We let woman end life over 1.4 million times a year in America, yes 1.4 million abortions happened in America last year, but ya, these poor scumbags should have been allowed to get away and turn more people into victims. The most a policeman can do is respond to people already being a victim, they cannot protect anyone. Only you can protect yourself or your society from those that want to harm you. If there was more fear of getting killed for robbing homes, maybe a few would not take up the profession.

Most of the rioters from that region are muslim, not frence, the story is about the rioting, why talk about those not involved, just to be pollitically correct? The reason they riot is the same as why North Korea, Iran, and any other nation plays bully, because they see they get paid to behave instead of being punnished for their actions. Why work when you can claim everyone is oppression you and you can get free tax money, food, lodging, etc?

There are many ways to start a conversation, one standard way is to ask a question to a group then give your own answer to invite others to reply. This is what I just did, I am sorry you could not understand that. Let me ask you a question, what is a debate in your mind? Is it everyone agreeing with you or banging out the details of a topic to understand all sides even if you are fairly sure you already know how you believe on that subject? It seems the only one going off into left field with personal attacks was you. I am sorry, could you please send me your guidelines of the proper method of debating so I can avoid future mistakes of this great magnitude requireing your internention? Seriously, get over your possition, you don't need to fine tune my topic names or otherwise try to insert your "assumptions" of my motivations for anything. Do you truly believe everyone here is too stupid to make up their own minds about what I am saying? My point even you completely miss is that you cannot call everything oppression if you want the general public to take notice, I am speaking from a point of view where if you want actions taken against truly oppressive situations, we need to stop flooding society with the word to describe everything from makeup to complete lies just to get headlines that end up nothing more than a dull noise after the first hundred thousand times the average person has heard it used. If you don't care about the more drastic oppression being ignored because it sounds like everything else then fine, that was not my point, I understand that under the most strict book definition anything can be twisted into fitting that word but where do we draw the line? I prefer the ability to correctly define real oppression from a woman having a bad hair day and claiming she is oppressed by the fashion industry but hey, if you prefer to lump it all together who am I to have a different opinion?

Well it had to be all about race right? I mean it had nothing to do with people stealing stuff that did not belong to them or breaking into a home they had no right to enter right? Wait, maybe these guys were the racists, they were not robbing a black person's home so maybe their robbery was motivated by their hatred. But wait, only whites can be racist, I keep forgetting that important fact. It kills me every time I see this stuff, why can't society just say bad people get bad results to their actions sometimes? They started the ball rolling, it was their decision to be criminals and take advantage of innocent people. Even if you want to call these robbers victims, I kind of like how it is okay for them to make others into victims who knows how many hundreds of times but if they get turned into a victim, now there is a problem. How typical of the liberal agenda.

But that would be logical and when has man ever been able to do anything in a logical mannor for very long before an illogical alternative was invented to take it's place. In this case we have a system designed to allow women total control over life. A woman can decide a life is not worthy of continuing but a man cannot. While I am against abortions for selfish reasons, I see no difference between a women killing a fetus or a man killing a fetus for thise same selfish reasons. I would only allow abortions for incest, rape, and "true" medical necessary reasons, not the fake ones currently allowed without documented proof of the need. If I was on the jury of this case, I let him walk, not because I see his actions as good, but in my atempt to show how unfair it is to have a double standard for the killing of an innocent fetus.

I just love the way all the "anti" crowds ignore the series of events, they ignore everything that leads up to an event and pretend the only fact is the ending they feel is wrong to further their "anti" agendas. Again we have anti-taser mentality mixed with anti-american or english combined into another futile attempt to put the blame on those who "respond" to bad behavoir and not put the blame on the person who started the ball rolling downhill in the first place. This guy was visiting a foreign country where they did not speak his language, some small amount of preperation may be logical in this case. If nothing else, a note pinned to his shirt as we do children who fly could have kept this from happening. But more important, him losing his self-control, tossing things and such gained the attention of those whose job it is to keep things under control. In many cases, these officials are lazy and need a very good reason to go out of their way and take this level of action. If you are getting the attention of a law enforcement official, you can only look at yourself to find the reason 99.9% of the time. Do you have any idea how much paperwork must be done after a use of force? Even the most power hungry cop will think twice about doing something when there is two to three hours of report writing to do at the end, much more if it turns into something big like this. But, if it is because we have less patient officers, that is because we run the good cops off by climbing up their behinds with a microscope to second guess everything they do just to appease public opinion or go on witch hunts when the public calls for blood. The world is not a daycare centre, grown adults need to learn how to take care of themselves, to plan ahead, to take responsibility for their own actions and tempers, not cry that someone else should have been more understanding of their temper tantrums.

It is natural for parents to want to protect their children but you can take it too far sometimes. I remember cars without seatbelts and there was no such thing as a "bike helmet". I remember the BB wars the best though, I wore a denum jacket as my only extra protection and we went to the woods and played war, like the sissys play paintball these days (I play paintball these days so I guess I am a sissy now). Anyone else use a rope swing to propell yourself high into the air and dive into a river? Playing for kids was an adventure, the more risk, the more fun it was. Now playing is all about sitting on your behind and playing video games for the average child, I wonder at this thing called progress.

Now that was funny.

The point of the thread and you keep dodging is that by calling everything oppression, you diminish real oppression. It is like comparing things to the holocaust, nothing can compare so the comparison diminishes it. That is why the masses do not care anymore. Every group and story wants attention for itself so they use the most attention getting words to do so but it has been happening for so long now that everything is called the same thing, so no reason for people to take notice and act on more important issues as used to be the case.

And the most likely percentage of being guilty, don't forget that little tidbit. And yet you want the parents to be completely ignored as suspects even though they have the highest degree of possible guilt. Being as they were never solved, how would you know that? Obviously you are making that up, I can just as easily say that all unsolved abductions and murders of children are done by the parents and what would that mean? Nothing, just like the crap you just said. Most crime against children of this sort is done by relatives and close friends, these parents are the only ones that match the statistics, clearly until a good reason comes up to no longer consider them, they should remain as the prime suspects. How do you know what the police "want" you a mind reader now? Again, more made up crap to try and support an unlikely scenario of the parents not being involved in some way. Actually, it is the opposite, the longer it remains unsolved, the greater the chance it was the parents are guilty. A stranger must act quickly, he must take chances and cannot prepare for every possibility so there is almost always a mistake somewhere, as time goes by and everything is more closely looked at, it shows that great care and time went into making that body dissapear, that means only the parents had the ability to put so much detail into the crime. No, I am very well educated in the situation and have a much greater understanding of investigations then you do being as I have done a few. Cadavar dogs don't know anything about politics, they only do what they are trained to do. They are trained to detect dead bodies, that is what they did, what people did with that information after the fact has nothing to do with the validity of the hits. We don;t know that because the details of what was found was not released, but they did say fluids in one report, at least a small about of fluid in the vehicle, that is not easily written off. The scent could not be transmitted in that way unless she had handled "fresh" dead bodies and never washed her hands before touching the floor of both the room and the vehicle, that is not plausable. Unless the drug use was the most common way they used, people tend to creat habbits and if they used the drug method at home, they would use it while away from home as well. Clearly they "could" have used the bebysitter if they wanted to, it was their choice, but they refused to get a sitter, very troubling fact to me. Again, you were not there and cannot read their minds so where we must make an "assumption" we should stay in the most reasonable and common assumptions in cases like these. A reasonable parent would never leave their tiny children unattended without knowing for sure they would not get into mischief. Being as they refused to get a sitter, there must have been another reason they were so sure the kids were not going to get into anything. It was requested and denied, another thing that draws suspicion. And is my reason for bring it up. You clearly feel it reasonable to talk of averages to "assume" a male molester was involved but they account for a very tiny number of attacks on children in the world and is stistically very doubtful in a situation like this. Only the parents had provable access, a possible good motive, and the knowledge to pull this off in such a seemless and perfect way. Nope, there is lots of evidence. They were the only ones with access to the children, they had plenty of time and knowledge to pull off this perfect crime, they have very unbelievable stories about why they refused to get a sitter and have everything to lose in life if guilty. Dead body hits in the appartment and vehicle as well as DNA evidence in that vehicle. The only evidence in the case directly points at the parents, not one shred of evidence points to anyone else. So clearly they were the only ones proven to have access. But she was never in the car, at least not alive anyway. What are you talking about, all of the evidence directly points at the parents. There may not be a lot of evidence, but what they have is against the parents. There is not one thing that proves anyone else was involved, that is where the lack of evidence falls to further show the parents are the only ones who could have done it. So far, but I am hoping new information does come along to prove it otherwise. You act like people want it to be the parents but most of us dred any story of a parent hurting their child. It pisses us off and makes us wonder how a parent could do something like this. It is much easier to accept actions like this from a stranger, without an emotional bond to the child then a parent who by every right should never be able to do it. But reality tells us that they are the most likely responsible people, no matter how much we may want it to be otherwise.