timesjoke

You hit every post in the thread as a 'punnishment' for me not agreeing with you, one would suffice but you can't just stop at one now can you? As I said, I expect that kind of behavior out of you guys so each time you go through every post hitting negatives you actually reinforce what I know to be true about the liberal mind. Thanks for helping out on my living case study, lol. Me, I expesss my opinions of your posts with words and to your face like a man and conservative, you can slink around in the ditches if you like, lol.

I think you missed my point. I agree with you in principle, but who does the arm chopping? You? Will you volunteer to stand in public and chop off arms for a day? How do you look into your children's eyes after that? While these guys "DESERVE" the attention your proposing, I believe it reduces us down to that level of animal we are punnishing them for. A clean execution is something completely different, we are humanely eliminating a bad creature from society, removing their existence because they have demonstrated they cannot exist in society in a peaceful way. We show our own humanity by "not" stooping down to their level. Of course I speak on that on a society level, if I had the chance to settle something done to my loved ones, the Government would not have to worry about how to punnish them.

lol, not from Joe, I already have too many of those from him. I would rather he owe me them than cheat me out of them.

Chi and emkay have been running around giving me negative rep on all my posts recently, I lost over a hundred rep points because the system let's them vote over and over again abusing the system. I don't really care though, just another example of how you have to be politically correct or the liberals will try to punnish you any way they can. Chi, do you have any idea how many people are out of work right now? It does not matter how hard working these people are, there are no jobs for them to get, so almost all the illegals are out of work and adding 12 million more will hjust mean 12 million added to the welfare list. We are broke, do you have any concept of that fact? The most understanding of all States for illegals is California, care to guess what state is the most borke and can't pay their bills? Yep, California, I feel bad for anyone who is looking for a better life, but I also have the ability to see when we have already extended ourselves beyond the ability to pay for these refugees from other Countries who cannot support themselves. For every one working there are at least 4 to 5 who are not working, and the one who is working is doing so under the table so they pay no taxes while draining services more than any group in America. Something must be done.

I would say that more than likely you are correct in your belief that Joe will never admit he was wrong, but Joe offering the apology or not is not really the point, he owes me one even if he refuses to offer it.

Well I am sure that level of action would be considered reasonable to some, but I can just hear the ACLU and other liberals screaming their heads off over something like this. Besides, who would do it? Would you want to chop off someone's arm? Being the executioner if you have an emotional tie to the event would be easy I am sure, but if a stranger is placed before you and is crying for mercy while you prepare to cut off his arm, would that be easy? If you found that to be easy, would that make you as bad as the guy your punnishing? As much as I agree with you on the level of punnishment they deserve, I believe that would most likely not be something most people would be able to do unless they were sick themselves. I would like to have public executions though, bring the reality back to the town square.

It really is kind to give credit to the source of your post, as to not be accused of plagiarism or trying to pass off other people's work as your own. Under different circumstances I would laugh but I can't because these are my words Joe. I did know and play with Kimberly, she was taken from my school, and I remember as a kid, armed parents were patrolling the perimeter of the schools for awile because this scared the crap out of everyone. A couple years later I remember another girl claiming she was abducted and raped and that just had the parents all worked up again until the girl confessed she lied. What makes you think I stole this from someone else Joe? Try googling it and see what you find, when you don't get any match from anyone else writing this I would appreciate an apology.

When I was a little kid, I remember finding out that monsters were real. No, they were not shodowy ghosts or deformed or mutated creatures as most children imagine monsters to be, the real monsters look just like everyone else, they are humans, or at least they look that way on the outside. On Feb. 9, 1978 I was 12 years old and it was on that day I discovered the truth. Kimberly Diane Leach was a pretty girl, she was not a close friend but both of our mothers were in the PTA and in those days people visited folks in person to discuss things instead of talking on the phone for a long time. I remember several times going to their home with my mother and while they drank coffee and chatted, we were outside playing. That is where kids played by the way, not inside stuck to a television but outside where the fresh air was. Feb. 9, 1978 was the day Theodore Robert Cowell introduced me to a real monster. More commonly known as Ted Bundy, this man who was on the run from the law after his second escape from a County Jail facility located in Colorado, decided to come to Florida and ply his skills here, after attacking several college girls in Tallahassee he took off and ended up in my hometown and for whatever reason, stopped off at my school and abducted Kimberly Diane Leach. This monster raped and killed Kimberly then dumped her body in a pig pen. The Government spent millions of dollars defending this monster even when there was no doubt of his guilt just to preserve the "appearance" of fairness. Did this animal show Kimberly fairness? I'm sorry but I want animals like this kept in jail for as long as possible, even one extra day locked up is a win for all children (and society) everywhere. You talk about what "might" happpen all you want, I will concentrate on what "IS" happening and worry about the "might happen" if it does happen.

While you have to go back to 2007 for that nice warm story, let's look back just a few days to see a truly hart warming story about the success of our system: http://www.king5.com/news/local/Investigators-Edmonds-rape-suspect-deported-nine-times-94637479.html by CHRIS INGALLS / KING 5 News KING5.com Posted on May 21, 2010 at 8:16 PM Updated Thursday, May 27 at 2:35 PM EDMONDS, Wash. – The KING 5 Investigators have learned that an illegal immigrant accused of raping a woman in Edmonds Sunday has been deported nine times. That's much more than previously reported. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement won't comment on the case of Jose Lopez Madrigal. But KING 5 got the information through confidential sources and documents. Larry Klein was the man who heard the alleged victim's cries for help. Police say the suspect pulled the woman off the street to a dumpster and raped her. "I could see the back of his head. I could see his pants were down. I could see her lying on the ground. I could hear her crying, but I couldn't really see her face," said Klein. Klein called police, who quickly arrested the suspect. But learning his identity took much longer because of some 30 aliases. It was only through fingerprints that they identified him as Madrigal, a Mexican citizen. Madrigal's arrest and immigration record includes a staggering number of contacts with law enforcement since 1989. That's the year he was convicted of theft using a firearm in California. He was deported a couple of times after that. Then in 1999, he was arrested for drug sales in both San Diego and San Francisco. Records show that he was deported three times that year between April and August. He was arrested for drugs again in Stockton, Calif. in 2000. In 2002, he pleaded to third degree sexual assault in Denver. Later that year, he was deported again. And in 2003, records show he was deported three more times. People who live near the scene of Sunday's alleged rape wonder how it could keep happening. "Makes you wonder, what are we doing wrong? How is he getting back in here?" said Kirby Aumick. "It’s troubling. I mean, if this man should not have been in this country, he should have been behind bars then, really, this is a senseless tragedy," said Klein. According to our sources, Madrigal's last contact before Sunday was around 2003. So, it's not clear how much of that time Madrigal was in this country. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has refused to comment on the case which started making national headlines when it was learned that Madrigal had been deported several times prior to the Edmonds case. In reviewing records and talking with confidential sources, the KING 5 Investigators learned just how extensive Madrigal’s immigration and arrest record is. They found he was first deported in California in 1989 and since then he’s returned from his Mexican homeland and been arrested for drug crimes, a sex assault in Colorado and other offenses. One criminal justice source says Madrigal is a "poster boy" for the federal governments ineffectiveness at keeping the most serious "criminal aliens" – illegals who commit crimes – out of the United States.

Nice feel good story. I'm glad it turned out well and I'm glad we have good people all over the world. Still doesn't change the fact that we need to secure the boarder. Well said snaf, how many people die because of the drug trade that also comes out of Mexico? I am very happy for this child, and I have already admitted that many of the people comming our of Mexico are not "evil" but the fact remains that they are illegal and breaking our laws, they are sucking the blood right out of our Nation and growing like a cancer out of control. As I said to Chi, if 12 million Japanese people suddenly appeared illegally, would she volunteer for higher taxes to "help" them stay? Somehow I doubt she would. I know I wouldn't. The real problem is all our communities are broke, we can't afford trillions of tax dollars in welfare and other free services (such as schools) and sooner or later we will have to face this fact. Sooner means less pain for everyone, later means more pain.

I agree, very acceptable and allows the public to see a real result from the crime and 'that' is a deterrent.

During the entire time of that video no cop was in danger. Cops are only allowed "by law" to use the force needed to overcome resistence. You said in the other thrwad that you were interested in supporting laws and following the "right way" of doing things, so apply that same standard here. Driving 120 MPH and doing drugs do not have a massive beating as part of the penalty and even if it did, the cops are not supposed to be judge, jury, and executioners, it is not their job to punnish. Not every person responds the same way to a taser, I have been hit with the strongest taser produced that cops know as "the belt" and I was still able to walk (looked like frankenstein, lol)and several other members could also walk while other guys fell to the floor like a stone ot thrashed like a fish. Consider that thugh, if the taser did work as you say, then still no reason to beat the crap out of him right? Tase him and cuff him, take him to jail, anything else is revenge seeking. I was in mortal danger with 4 guys attacking me. The result of me not using deadly force was my death. These cops were never in moral danger at the time they were using force. No reason to use deadly force, no right to use deadly force "by law". How is a cop protecting himself by kicking a guy in the head that is on the ground and not trying to hit or hurt them? All those cops with guns, tasers, and batons all were in danger of being killed in your opinion? So you giving every cop in America permission to beat the crap out of people without cause is not taking away our rights?

Maybe you need to get your head out of your anus......see I can play that way too, is that wat you want? Toss nasty insults and stuff back and forth because I dare not to agree with "YOUR" view? Can we not agree to dissagree without the emotional outbursts? I don't treat you that way so why do you feel compelled to treat me that way? No, you dodged the points and refused to give a real answer climing they were irrelivent. Your the guy dodging and hiding behind false claims that my points don't deserve an answer just because you can't answer. Go back and read my post, for every item you offered a real reply to, I responded 100%. Just because I did not waste an hour going line by line that does not mean I dodged anything, if you think I did not cover some relivent point then please feel free to ask again and leave your insulting snide comments at the door because I never intentionally dodge anything. Semantics. The only reason the Government is "grabbing power" is because it had to due to massive problems at the State level. Cause and effect, forever connected no matter how much you say it is unfair to look at the reasons the reasons are still the most important part. For every example of the Government (either State or Federal) gaining more power over the people, there is a direct and stupid set of example of people dropping the ball and giving Government the excuse to do so. I am very sad that these examples exist, but we can only blame ourselves and not Government for doing it. Take sex education in the public schools for example, this would never had happened if parents had done their jobs at home, but they did not do their jobs and in that vaccume, a new government school program was developed. Our own fault. Fix them right away? When have you ever heard of that ever happeneng? Right now less than 1% of the population control all the laws in the Nation, that is why we get things like the new healthcare law when most Americans did not want it. You said you want these monsters to be punnished more right? Then instead of screaming at me about how easy it is to get the laws changed the "right way", how about you go out there and show me how it is done? You get the laws changed "right away" and I will say your right and I am wrong, but if you can't, then I ask you one very important question, how many children die and ger molested while your waiting forever to get a local law changed? Extreme and over the top sensational claim, this would never happen, the premise of the new case law is based on the fact these are already convicted predators, not every day citizens, case law does not work that way. Did not this same system create the supreme court? Your saying to respect the system to one degree, but not another? You are attacking me, your trying to call into question my moral fiber just because I don't support "your" specific views. You can't escape the basic fact that if these creatures are released, more children are harmed, this is fact, dodge it all you want and hide behind a claim of "purity" all you want, but there is no possible way to escape the fact that you want the molesters released. Sure you have pretty idealogy reasons for that release, but no matter how much pretty wrapping paper you apply, the results are more hurt and killed children. Your falsely claiming that allowing this one thing will lead to people being arrested for eating red meat but you try to call me a drama queen? Yes "every child" is placed in danger of rape and death if we release these monsters one second sooner than we have to. You want them released, so yes, your possition places all children at greater risk, that is not drama, that is the truth. Everything your claiming about being "possibly deadly" is conjecture and assumption, there is no proof that there are any greater harms to "take the water" only your "fears" and I will not condemn children to greater harm based on unfounded fear connected to a strict political agenda or ideaology. Rodney King was an example of how the States drop the ball and the Federal Government is forced by the mistakes of the State to step in and fix a problem. The civil rights laws is another great example. Your "assuming" ther help from the Government is similar to being cast into Hell, and that again is more drama queen theatrics you tried to claim I was doing. You went way over ther top to impossible and fake results connected to this one event. If just the simple act of the Feds stepping in would cause the destruction of all things America then why didn't everything collapse when they stepped in to deal with the Rodney King issue?

The point is not one cop was ever in danger, there was no threat so no need for that level of violence. There is a thing called the "use of force matrix", every law enforcement officer knows that the level of force they are allowed to apply is only to the degree to overcome resistence. And the most likely reason he was still trying to get up is because they were zapping the sh!t out of him with ERD's, let me hit you with a bunch of electricity and see if you just sit still. Rodney King was an azzhole, he had a long history with local law enforcement, and this was a case of street justice, the police were dead wrong to let their personal feelings for 'revenge' drive them to abuse their authority and possitions of power. You talk of a slippery slope to let the Federal Government get the power to keep 'convicted' criminals past their release date, but at the same time you condone all police everywhere to conduct public beatings for personal revenge? I suppose that would be giving power to local Governments and not the Federal Government but in my mind your still giving up a lot of personal rights and protections if you say all Americans can be beat down like that without cause just because the cops are mad at you.

You used your color code and admitted that you were not responding to things you felt were irrelivent first my friend, you dodged about 97% of my direct points and questions so why are you now crying about me not going point by point when I clearly answered 100% of your questions in one reply? If you think I did not answer a question then ask it again and I will gladly address it because I have never dodged a single thing intentionally, not one time of ever being on this board, I am human though and I could possibly do it by mistake. Why the personal attacks? Without the victims, no new rule to protect the victims. It is illogical to try and discuss this new case law without also including the "REASON" it was created. There are laws in place now "THAT DON'T WORK". Hense the need for the new rules, without these failures, no need for the new rules, you keep dodging the failures that force the changes, that is the real problem. Your getting all upset over the symptoms and ignoring the problem. I am concerned with results more than any single concept of politics. If I have to condone the rape and killing of a innocent child to meet up with "YOUR" idea of having beliefs or credibility I am glad to dissapoint you. Why do you have to attack me as a person just because I don't agree with you? My morals and beliefs go deeper than a political ideology, my base is rooted in what is right, not what will make some guy on the internet happy. No, your trying to over complicate the issue because "YOU" don't like where the help is comming from, but the reality is, no metter where the water comes from, you need the water. By clinging to principle, you die, if you believe your death is better than compramise then fine, that is your choice, but don't condemn every child in America to die or be molested for "YOUR" blind following of a principle. Completely off the point, accepting help from the Federal Government will not condemn anyone to Hell, just like the Federal Government stepping in to convice the Rodney King cops did not spell out the end of the world. If there is a gap that needs filling, someone needs to fill that gap. As I have clearly pointed out, none of this happens if the States had done their jobs just like the AZ law would never have been considered if the Feds had done their jobs in stopping illegal immigration. And every day is a great day

What is a, "possition"? Similar to position but you add the stutter

I just had to comment on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROn_9302UHg I don't know about RaE, but I call this excessive, all of the beating done in this video is with Rodney King on the ground and not threatening anyone. You can see taser wires connected to him with officers beating him and kicking him over and over after he is clearly no longer a threat. But, their actions were not based on race, when the State tried to force the jury to find racial motivations as part of the crime they refused to do so and aquitted the cops because that element was not there.

Typical liberal possition, make yourself look good by bringing someone else down. I see your still on the Liberal attack plan to use every opportunity to boost up Obama against Palin.

Very pretty, really, very nice looking so much so you very successfully draw attention away from the facts very well. Let's make this easier because me letting you explode this into such a big mess it has been easier for you to dodge the real point........Victims. Yes, normally I am Very Conservative, I almost always lean to States rights and away from the Federal Government doing things. But as much as you cry about how unfair it is to include the results of a hands off policy, I still have to say the result of hands off is more molested and killed children IN THIS CASE, and no matter how many names you call me I will never knowingly support any action that places a child in harms way. Your ranting at me over and over about how the "proper" way of doing something is, and the part your missing is I agree, I agree that there are proper ways, but up to now the proper way is not being followed and while we are waiting for the proper way to work, who pays that price? No matter how idealistic I may get against the Federal Government and it's power I still cannot fight against something that protects a child and I cannot fight against something that I know without a shadow of doubt will hurt children. So in summery, "IF" the States do their job and protect the people, especially the weakest members of society, then I am happy. "IF" not, then as much as I hate the source, I will not turn away help where I can find it. To offer a very simple anology: Your crossing the desert for sport and you hired a guy (named 'States') to guide and supply your trip. Part of that guys responsibility is to have plenty of water for everyone on the expedition but at the half way point you discover that while he did supply enough water to get you this far, your now out of water. Ranting and raving at the hired guide is certainly your right and clearly you could even sue the guide for failing to meet his responsibilities as agreed, but right now you need water to survive. So as your sitting there dying of thirst a small carivan of traders are comming and the leader (named Federal Government) offers you some water. Do you refuse the water because it is not 'Federal Governments' job to supply you with water? . . Have a nice day

It is not a matter of how I see fit, it is how the majority of Americans feel these monsters should be handled and if the local States are doing their part to make that happen. In this case they are not. The law is "supposed" to protect the innocent, if the States refuse to protect the innocent I will accept the help of the federal Government as a sad but welcome alternative to doing nothing.

And I would agree, if not that inaction causes a lot of children to be victims. The reality of a failure to act is something most refuse to admit to, including RaE. I don't want the Federal Government to do anything but what they "have" to do, and in this case, they have to because the States refuse to. I have children, I will not advocate something that places children in harms way, each issue like this I have to imagine it is my kids who pay the price, not some faceless "other" child.

The short version: Laws and changes to laws do not happen out of nowhere, there must be some driving force or need that causes it to happen. In this case we have dangerious people who will attack children if released, we cannot honestly discuss the new laws without also considering "why" they were created, as unsavery as making new laws or rules may seem on the surface to some people, this would never have happened if not for that massive need to act. This has nothing to do with the Federal Government stepping on States rights, this is about the States giving away their rights by demonstrating their inability to deal with a big problem. The scale of harm is the driving factor, the result of doing nothing is children being harmed, society being damaged at it's core because the laws of the land have been so distorted that they no longer protect the innocent but instead serve and protect the criminals. There is not one person who can honestly claim that our founding fathers had this perversion in mind way, way back then. I cannot condemn children to be victims just to be able to say I have preserved a feeling of "purity" that is in reality a distortion of the intent of laws for society.

I have no idea what this has to do with the discussion. How is playing games with federal funding protecting a child from a predator? And that only makes the feds look like the bad guy because the State just screams about all the hungry children that are being hurt by the funding withdrawal, and more time wasted on BS while the problem goes unsolved. RK just got what he deserved? He was certainly an azzhole, but these cops are the representation of the law, they should not be acting like that. You don't want the Government to have the power to hold pedophiles but at the same time you want cops to be able to beat the crap out of people just because they don't like them? Don't you think that goes against a few of our rights there buddy? Seems to me your don't really believe in the constitution if you think cops should behave in such ways and not be punnished. As I said before, this is not a problem if the States step up and do their part, as far as I am concerned they are following the will of the people. Whim implies a rushed and impulse act, this is not either, I questioned your use of an obviously incorrect word to describe the issue in question. And the punnishment at State level for a black who drank from a whites only water fountain was very severe at one time, but the Federal Government had to force the States to remove laws like that. States are not supposed to be completely seperate as if they are a Nation of their own, when they are messing up, someone must act, in this case it is the Federal Government. As I said before, what if the State makes child molesting legal? You never said that would be wrong, you put the blame on the parents and said they should be forced to move away and I don't agree. If the States refuse to be reasonable, then they also force a reaction from the Federal Government. Irrelivent? I don't think so, to me the severity of the problem is what determines how we should allocate our resources to a problem. In this case the problem is large enough to require action. This action is only required because of the States who refuse to act. I don't believe protecting children from these kinds of monsters is insignificant. If there is a slippery slope it is caused by the States themselves who knowingly refuse to fix a problem and that direct refusal forces the hand of the Federal Government to act where the States refuse to act. I don't say 'screw States rights', I say the States had every opportunity to fix this problem and failed, and that failure has forced the Federal Government to try and help in a problem caused by the States. And still you refuse to admit that what you want means more child victims. This is the result of letting them free, if you can't at least be honest and admit that then I know your not taking this seriously. I would say the same thing if the States were refusing to deal with crimes like murder, why let people get away with crimes, or get a slap on the wrist just because the States refuse to act or are too incompetent to act? Also consider victims like Mary Jo Kopechne where there are lwas on the books and still the State refuses to enforce them, in this case because of political clout. We can't always look at things from the point of view during those times, do you think at the time the Constitution was written they thought child molesters would go unpunnished in society? In their day the community would drag the molester off and kill him while the local law would pretend to not even notice the guy was no longer around. If you want to honor those times and beliefs then I am all for that my friend, but if you say that times have changed then we have to accept other changes as well. So to stand on principle, you want pedophiles released so they can molest children some more? How do we preserve freedoms in one way, and condemn a child to be molested to pay for those freedoms? I'm sorry, but our system was never intended to be manipulated in such ways to transofrm the peaceful masses into victims and to instead protect the criminals. We need to look past the words and see the intent of our founding fathers based on how the world worked at the time they created things like the Constitution. What your asking for is a pervision of law where we stake out our children as victims to the wolves to serve an invisible master based on an incorrect view of how laws were intended to function in America. Our laws were intended to protect the innocent, what your advocating is screw the innocent and protect the criminal. As I said before, the Government can already kill you "for cause", can't get any more power then that, the question here is the application of that power and under what terms it is reasonable to apply it. By refusing to deal with this problem, the States are actually the ones who force the Federal Government to act. I don't see anything moral about letting them go and put them on the streets one day earlier than we must. That one extra day may save one child from attack, and I would call that a huge victory. Sure I want more, but at the same time I will not turn my back on any improvement, no matter how small, because that one improvement represents a lot of protected children. No, your missing the point of how a law is created and what it is "supposed" to represent. Laws are the written moral values of society (in general). Almost all of society wants these monsters to never have access to a child again, but our elected officials allow tiny segments of the PC crowd to muddy the waters of the debate and block change. The system has been perverted to protect the criminals, and as long as the system is so corrupt, there will be huge gaps that "NEED" to be filled. I have said over and over again that I would be glad if the States would step up, but if the States refuse, then the problem still exists, and I want that problem fixed. And while we are waiting for the change great harms like the healthcare law happen. In this case the great harm is the many children who pay the price for what you want to happen.

That was pretty funny eddo

Well as you have said many times Wez, I can't make you me, you have to want to be logical and reasonable before you can have the ability to debate as a human being and not as someone who is entirely interested in picking fights for the sake of the fight itself. My only real issue with your trying to pick fights is it derails an honest attempt at a good discussion Wez, all this crap your dragging in has nothing to do with the topic and that hurts the ability for other people to discuss the actual topic.