Hillary in 2008!

“Gosh... the usual "liberal" suspects aren't hanging out at the political discussion threads lately. I just can't figure it out.


The Democrats are at it again. THIS is why people criticize Democrats for being the party of victims. This may be a part of the reason that party membership is lower than it has been since 1928.


Democrats seem unable to admit that some of their beliefs may be based on flawed logic. This is what the “liberal” media is saying about why the Democrats lost the Presidency, the Senate, the Senate minority leader, AND the House:

The “solid South” is racist

The evangelical Christians turned out in huge numbers.

People were fearful about terrorism.

Kerry didn’t have a clear message

The Democrat message was too complicated for the average voter; the Republican message simple enough for the average voter.

Kerry was indecisive.

Kerry lacked enough campaign funds to advertise effectively.

The Republicans were effective in pointing out Kerry’s weaknesses.

Kerry was weak in defending attacks against him.

Kerry wasn’t likeable as a person.

His advisors mismanaged Kerry’s campaign.

Bush’s campaign was “…a tightly run, richly financed and highly disciplined message machine.”

Republicans won by “misrepresenting and distorting the statements, positions, and record of Kerry.”


There is a grain of truth in each of these reasons. What is GLARINGLY missing is an examination of what Democratic Party policies are unpopular. They blame their losses on other people’s bigotry, other people’s religious beliefs, other people’s irrational fears, other people’s stupidity, bad campaign strategy, lying Republicans, and a lack of emotional connection to their candidate. There is no admission that many people may not ethically agree with certain policies that the Democrats stand for. And there is absolutely no discussion about what those policies may be. All I’m hearing from the “liberal” media is disappointment in a weak candidate and anger towards other people.


In my local elections, two initiatives to raise taxes were narrowly defeated. This surprised the heck out of me because my county is heavily Democrat. Here’s what our local Democrat leaders had to say:

The timing was bad.

Many voters were “casual voters” who voted for President but ignored local issues.

Proponents didn’t have enough time to mount an effective campaign.


This is the same tired Democrat rhetoric about stupid and uninformed voters. There certainly are a number of stupid and uninformed voters, but these Democrat leaders won’t even THINK about the fact that many citizens are fed up with government growth and spending. They won’t even consider that people might just be fed up that local population growth has been 10% over the last five years, while local government spending has increased by 30%.




Those who equate morality only with evangelical Christian morality are clueless. It’s a terrible thing to know you’re out of touch with the people who you are trying to convince to support your ideas. It’s tragic to not have a clue, nor to care, as to why you’re out of touch.”

“Arclite, 48% of the vote went to a democratic candidate. The three percent difference doesn't give you a blank check to buy the soul of America. The country is divided along idealogical lines pretty evenly.

While the majority went to the encumbent, I'm certainly not ready to jump into the river of "mainstream" America just to be with the majority.

BTW, we probably agree on a good many of the government spending issues, but your combative tone invariably makes me want to take a polar position to distance myself from you.”

“Phad, what do you expect out of a Florida fan ;)”

“I’ve been busy. Plus I figured I’d let the conservatives jerk each other off for a few days, just to be nice.

Do I need to remind you that at one time a majority was against women voting, supported slavery and segregation of the races? I don’t mind being in the minority because I believe I’m right.

Bush won by the slimmest margin of any incumbent war time president in history. If the next few years go as I expect them to, more than a few people will regret their vote.”

“Oh yeah... I guess conservatives never look to blame others for their losses, huh?

Keyes Blames Media, GOP for Loss”

“Sorry treebeard. I moved that post to the 'mandate' thread where I meant to put it.”

“Oooooo nice retort guys:

Ewker says- nothing

Violin says: “I know they are but what are we.”




The thoughtfulness of your denial is staggering. You’re wrong, violin, and the country showed you how wrong your ideas are by the largest popular majority since Bush senior. How does it feel to be so out-of-touch? You’ll probably listen to the “liberal” media for a totally clueless analysis of what went wrong with your platform. Just like y’all were wrong about high voter turnout benefiting Democrats.

Yeah you “liberal” bozos will probably nominate Hillary in 2008. Clueless doesn’t even begin to describe anyone who wants to move this country in the direction of socialism.

We are witnessing the death of liberalism. “Liberal”= intolerant, closed-minded, and especially ideas that maintain the status quo. “Liberals” have managed to rewrite the dictionary.



My favorite “liberal” myth is how arrogant y’all are in your infallibility. How arrogant y’all are in your steadfast belief that you are better, more moral human beings than those who disagree with your ideas. Hypocrites? Oh no, let’s redefine the dictionary again to suit your feelings.


As a liberal, I feel nothing but disgust for most Democrats and their tired lies.”

“Ewker says- nothing

arclite
4:16:13 PM
11/08/04

arclite, you must forget that I was the one saying vote for none of the above because I didn't care for either one.

As far as Hillary Clinton running in 08, I don't think that will happen. If she does she will also be included in None of the above again.

I am assuming that is what this thread is about.
last edited: 11/08/04 4:26:07 PM”

“2008 ticket: McCain/Guiliani

That's senator McCain (war veteran) and the ex NY mayor Guiliani.
last edited: 11/08/04 4:27:59 PM”

“lh, don't be suprised if you see a ticket that consist of a Rep and a Dem who are both fed up with their respective parties.

McCain could be the Rep, Liberman could be the Democrat. Lots of things to watch.

Hillary/anyone would not get my vote. i would do my mini protest again and skip voting for Pres like I did this yr”

“Yep, I read your posts, Ewker. And I wondered if you, like I, voted third party?”

“Soooo arclite...

How well did the Libertarian candidate do? Did he break 0.1%?

Talk about out-of-touch, marginalized and plain whacked out!
last edited: 11/08/04 4:56:10 PM”

“And while you're busy being disgusted by tired lies, chew on this one:

"the country showed you how wrong your ideas are by the largest popular majority since Bush senior."
- arclite
4:16:13 PM

In 1996 Clinton beat Dole 47,401,898 to 39,198,482. In 1992 he beat Daddy Bush 44,909,326 to 39,103,882. Both were greater margins than little George's ManDate. While your statement is technically correct, it is deliberately misleading. In other words, a filthy lie.”

“Ewker, that would be interesting to see a ticket with a republican and a democrat that everyone liked. I think if the one running for president was a republican, the democrats would still not want to vote for that ticket.

Kerry and McCain are friends, so Kerry asked McCain to campaign for him and McCain said no. He was behind Bush. I would have loved to have heard that conversation.”

“"Gosh... the usual "liberal" suspects aren't hanging out at the political discussion threads lately. I just can't figure it out."

-- arclite

After reviewing this election's results, we have 51% of voters who are complete morons, therefore there is no reason to discuss politics, economics, sociology, history, science, math, logic, philosophy, etc. with anybody who voted for that moron (based on his character, intelligence, platform, record, etc.), hence, you must toss each other off, like Violin suggested, in your own little world of stupidity, and use your "political insight" amongst yourselves.

I leave you with this: The blood of our troops is on your hands, Bush and Republican Voters for the next 4 years, not mine. You now have it all..... House, Senate, Presidency, Supreme Court; will you make abortion illegal, like you've promised, or leave the morons who follow you twisting in the wind (as usual)? Will GWB be a uniter, not a divider, as he stated in his first campaign? NOT! So when you brag, gloat, and take away the rights of the majority of America by duping them through rleigious doctrine or lack of education, expect THE REAL AMERICANS to stand opposed, and fight your ignorance. Bush will never have a mandate, never have the support of the majority of Americans, will never have the respect of the world, and his presence may trigger the end of The Great Society. So brag and gloat, be an ignorant poor sport. Your time will come, and the division that you, GWB and republicans created will result in paybacks that you can't imagine.


BB”

“arc, while reading the L.A. Times, a "liberal" paper (though not as liberal as they used to be), I didn't see any of the "reasons" you listed.
The reason I remember was "Kerry is the problem". This was based on: Kerry didn't win Colorado but a Democrat was voted in for the Senate, the House, and the Gov.
Kerry lost Montana but the Gov. and the state legislature went to Democrats.
There were a couple of other states mentioned that I can't recall at the moment.
So, I have to question your sources and their conclusions. I mean 51% is not sweeping mandate. And it doesn't mean that all the Democratic ideas are unpopular.”

“arclite, I went to vote and voted for all the local politicans. When it came time to vote for President I stood there looking at the 2 stooges and a wannabe running for office. I went with my gut and did not vote for anyone. My mini protest I guess!!”

“In 1996 Clinton beat Dole 47,401,898 to 39,198,482. In 1992 he beat Daddy Bush 44,909,326 to 39,103,882. Both were greater margins than little George's ManDate. While your statement is technically correct, it is deliberately misleading. In other words, a filthy lie.”

Violin


This may be true, violin. I was just parroting the “liberal” media in the statement, “…by the largest popular majority since Bush senior.” It doesn’t surprise me that the “liberal” media lies.

Well, I just recently emailed Dayhiker about my political affiliation. I told him that you were about the only person who remembered what it was. I also told him that you had never spilled the beans. I guess that’s a lie now.

I always vote my conscience, violin. Most normal people realized that we weren’t being presented with much of a choice this time. What is amazing are the people who stood so passionately behind their mediocre candidates. Dogma prevents these people from admitting:

High voter turnout didn’t help the Democrats (wrong)
Most “blue-collar” people didn’t agree that the Democrats to stand for their values. (wrong)

You appear to have some interesting ideas, violin. You voted for a mediocre candidate and now defend your choice passionately. You talked as if you were convinced about Kerry’s victory long before the election. You voted for the status-quo.



I agree, naviguesser. There are many ideas coming from the Democrats that I believe are good ones. If you give me time I can footnote all of the sources for you. I assure you that they all came from reading the newspaper except the one about the “solid- south” being racist. That came from a talking heads show on PBS. That idea was put forth by a very distinguished looking black man. It is my guess that like many “liberals” who are convinced of this racist prejudice, he has never lived in the south.



Good for you Ewker! At least you voted your conscience. The few…the proud…



And then there’s Buddha. What better example of Democrat arrogance is there? People who disagree with Buddha are “complete morons.” Now there’s a healthy attitude, and a perfect example of one of my points.”

“Gee whiz, I’m sorry arc.

I didn’t realize you were keeping your party affiliation a secret - really. I thought it was relevant to point out since you started this thread to attempt to prove that Democrats suffered electoral defeat because (as you say) their policies are unpopular. If 55.7 million votes proves that, what does the Libertarian showing prove? I really can’t blame you for wanting to keep your position in the outer reaches of the lunatic fringe a secret, but if you were voting your conscience, I’d think you’d be proud.

I’m kind of surprised you would parrot the meme about voter margins from a source you don’t trust without at least having the intellectual curiosity to check into yourself, given all you’ve posted in the past about critical thinking. Then again, maybe I’m not.

FYI: In terms numbers of popular votes, Bush’s margin was the thinnest since 1976. This against the guy they liked to point out had the most liberal voting record in the Senate (one year). That’s hardly a wholesale rejection of progressive policies.

Look into it yourself.”

“If I were sketching Arclite for a Doonesbury cartoon, he would be a broken record wearing boxing gloves.
last edited: 11/09/04 10:16:29 AM”

“Hillary in '08?
The DNC can do so much better than that.

Actually, I'm no longer sure either party can do better given the choices presented in the last few elections.”

“"I assure you that they all came from reading the newspaper"
arc, don't bother with the footnotes. As i'm sure you are aware many newspapers have a spin that is so strong that they can't even get the "news" right. But, I'll take YOU at your word.

Have you ever seen anyone more racist than a black man? There I go generalizing again, but like so many things - Consider the source.
[b]”

“if there is one thing i would like to see, it would be a candidate from either side that was more center line on things. they would get my vote no doubt.

hillary 2008... ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha”

“Violin, my party affiliation has been a source of amusement. It’s amazing how many “liberals” here have ASSumed that I’m a “conservative” Republican. It really shows their polarized, uncritical, closed minded, prejudice. They can’t seem to help themselves from proving one of my recurring points about so-called “liberals” reinventing words for their own self-righteous sense of superiority. And then they try to deny it!!! I find that extremely amusing.


“I’m kind of surprised you would parrot the meme about voter margins from a source you don’t trust without at least having the intellectual curiosity to check into yourself, given all you’ve posted in the past about critical thinking.”


Speaking of critical thinking. This ignores your obvious faux pax. You managed to show what liars you think the media are. Your retort is ad hominem and red herring. Two in one! It’s worthless as a piece of critical thinking.


Naviguesser, I posted those footnotes on the Buddhafascist thread. Sorry, I got confused about to which thread I was posting. It's not the first time, it won't be the last.”

“So you really don't want to talk about your party's showing last week and what it means about the relative strength of your opinions?

I understand.”

“I'd like to expand on what baume and HPM said. Who are some likely moderate candidates on each side of the fence?

Dem: I haven't a clue, but I'll bet there are some. Howard Dean maybe?
Repub: Colin Powell or John McCain?”

“If McCain plans on running for president, he's off to a good start. As I've said before, he is making himself known in the media and across the country by campaigning for Bush, and I've seen him on Jay Leno twice recently, so he is getting in his tv time, before he is officially running where Jay Leno would have to give equal time to his opponent.

He may be starting very early, but he is becoming well known. He talks on Leno about issues, and is amusing, so they keep having him back.”

“LH, you do know he ran for president once already, right?”

“See, this is the problem I have with LH. What the hell does being on Jay Leno have to do with competant leadership? Nothing! McCain has been well known for a long time. He doesn't seem to be too moderate anymore, in my opinion, because of his support for the doofus in office. If you were a moderate republican, with the leaway that McCain has with America, there was no political or true american idealogical reason for him to do that unless he is a blue blood republican disguising himself as a moderate.

McCain lost my respect, especially when he appears on the "Tonight Show" more than once.

arclite - define "liberal"”

“Phaedrus, when did McCain run for president and who was his running mate?

Buddha, you are obviously not a chess player. They think moves ahead like McCain. He ran in the primaries and kids that were 10 years old then will not remember him 8 years later when they can vote and if he wants to run for president. By appearing on shows that have millions of viewers and are popular with kids, he will be known to them in 8 years when they can vote.

It's your right if you do not respect McCain who is a war veteran, hero, and prisoner of war for 5 years. What if he was MIA, would you still have no respect for him. Do you not respect MIAs or only those who have made it back alive?”

“Its all about exposure BB,,sadly more people probably watch Leno than Meet the Press and I would be willing to bet most politicians would rather do a Leno show than take a grilling on Meet the Press.

Once I saw Slick Willy blow is horn on the Arsenio Hall show it was forshadowing of things to come. No pun intended.

Hillary does not have what Bill had. She has not a chance and you folks would really show your colors or lack there of if you try to push her on us. I do kinda admire her,, for what she has endured,,but how hard could it be to ride Bill's coattails.

Hillary = liberal”

“Anyone want to throw some moderate names out on either side of the fence?”

“I saw an interview with Sen. Bayh, a democrat from Indiana and I was very impressed with him. He is a centrist and is trying to get his party to swing back from the left so they can actually reflect the views and will of the actual voters.”

“OK, here's a challenge for my conservative friends:
My do you HATE Hillary?
I don't know that much about her and when I ask this question I get answers like "She's a #&%!$!"
So, educate me and keep it civil.”

““Have you ever seen anyone more racist than a black man? There I go generalizing again, but like so many things - Consider the source.”

Naviguesser


Generalizing? It sounds as if you are being sarcastic about the possibility of a black man being racist. Are you telling me that you think it is impossible for a black man to be racist? Please tell me I am misinterpreting this, Naviguesser.

This is a slippery slope that I have seen many “liberals” go down before. The color of a man’s skin has nothing to do with whether he is a racist. The idea that a person cannot possibly be racist because he is black, is an assumption I have seen many “liberals” make. This is an illogical, prejudicial, and bigoted way of thinking. I must be misinterpreting your sarcasm because I have seen better thought from you.

I described the man as black merely for identification purposes. I did this in the belief that someone may make a connection and be able to tell me who the guy was. He seemed very thoughtful and intelligent except for his racist comments.





“So you really don't want to talk about your party's showing last week and what it means about the relative strength of your opinions?

I understand.”

Violin


No, no, it’s alright, I believe that you do not fully understand. It’s good to know that some things never change. Such as your continued attempts to avoid self-examination.

Let me show you how I do it. There are many ideas to be taken from this election. Let me start with taking personal responsibility for the way I think and what it may possibly be that I need to reexamine:

1. My ideas are unpopular and DEFINITELY out of the mainstream.
2. My candidate was a complete moron.
3. 99.9% of the population has the ability to process information better than do I.
4. Trying to limit existing government influence in our lives is a bad idea.
5. Believing that government has no business regulating marriage between two consenting adults is a bad idea because government should regulate societal morality.
6. Belief in a free-market economy is a bad idea. Government run programs to redistribute property are a much more efficient way to create prosperity for all.
7. Disagreeing with the use of the death penalty is wrong because it does act as a deterrent.
8. The idea that it is theft to forcefully redistribute property from those who have more to those who have less, is an oversimplification.
9. Legalizing drugs will do more harm to society than good.
10. It is wrong to vote for a candidate who has no chance of winning.
11. I am wrong to think that the current two-party system needs improvement
12. I am wrong to think that the current two-party system can be improved by the addition of third parties.
13. I should vote for one of the two-party candidates because people like violin, my wife, my mother,… will think I’m foolish for “wasting” my vote and they will ridicule me.


Help me out here, violin. What other ideas should I reexamine as a result of my candidate receiving so few votes?





arclite - define "liberal"”

Buddha


Buddha, I do not define words. That is the responsibility of the folks who edit dictionaries.

Some definitions of liberal: Broad-minded; Stresses warmhearted readiness to give more than size or importance of the gift; Suggests lavish, unremitting in giving or providing; Open-minded, free from prejudice.

One of my recurring points being that: some people have taken on the responsibility for redefining the English language themselves, irrespective of the source of word definitions for the language.

That is why I usually use the word with quotation marks. Because most people who call themselves “liberal” are closed-mined, prejudiced, and generous with other people’s money.

Why don’t some of those Hollywood “liberals” give up merely HALF of their million dollar (a very conservative figure) salaries to donate to charity? Why don’t they give everything that they possibly can of their own money for medical research and to lessen poverty before they demand my tax dollars? My standard of living will decline noticeably if I were to pay more taxes. Is $500,000 too little for these people to live on? Why do these people demand my tax dollars before being warmhearted in their readiness to give more than size or importance of the gift and lavish and unremitting in their giving or providing?

Granted, being closed-minded, prejudiced, and generous with other people’s money is not the sole province of “liberals.” It seems to be an enduring human trait. But if you are going to identify your beliefs with predefined words, why choose words that are so inaccurate? I hear liberals use these definitions (Broad-minded, warmhearted readiness to give, lavish, unremitting in giving or providing; Open-minded, free from prejudice), and also progressive, in an apparent attempt to feel good about themselves. They remind me of those religious fanatics who judge others by their actions, and themselves by their intentions. With this mind-set there is little incentive to self-examine the practical quality of their beliefs.”

“She's gonna try to sell herself as a conservative. Just watch.

Hillary is a freak. She's possibly sicker than her husband. Shave her scalp - there you'll find the mark of the beast.”

“arclite, I believe there is a death penalty, because some states believe if you take a life, your life should be taken so you can't enjoy being alive. Even though you are limited in jail to your enjoyment of life, you can still be happy you are not dead. I'm not positive what privileges death row inmates have, but they may get magazines, books, and the ability to communicate with their loved ones either through phone calls or mail. The dead person lost these privileges.

Just as an added gift to the state, they don't have to pay to house this murderer anymore. It's very expensive to house an inmate. It also may give closure to the family that is suffering from losing a relative that was murdered.”

“arc - your generosity comment hit home. NPR reported today that an analysis had been performed on 2002 tax returns. In general, the NE has the highest income and lowest percentage of charitable giving. The SE had the lowest income, I believe they said that, and the highest level of giving. Mississippi had the highest giving in the country and Conneticut had the lowest to go along with the highest average income. Is it possible that people in the South are very generous with their own money, they just want to insure where it goes. The United Way of Central Alabama typically knocks the socks off of other comparable sized districts.”

“I don't think that Hilary will run? I couldn't be that lucky.”

“That's very interesting, dayhiker.

I've loved the South since I moved down here.

Many people from around the country have misconceptions about other parts (damn Yankee is not always said in fun), but the “liberal” misconceptions about the South really bug me. I’ve seen more racial harmony here than I ever did in the northeast. Up north they tend to keep the prejudice segregated and quiet.

Hollywood’s stereotype of the dumb Southern red-neck has been regurgitated in so many forms it’s been old for years. It seems to be dying a slow death like the Amos and Andy portrayal of blacks. But now we hear about the “liberals” trying to get the dumb red-necks in pick-ups, with flags in their back window, vote.

And they wonder why they can’t get a northeastern “liberal” candidate elected in the South? Truly amazing...”

“The Democrats don't need the South. Just like the Republicans don't need the Northeast. Democrats need Northern Catholics, fiscal conservatives and SW Hispanics.

This means allowing pro-life Democrats to speak at party conventions, allowing passage of late-term abortion bans and making the very strong case for a free market, no-big-government approach to end abortion.

It also means spending the next four years working to pin the Republicans down on their irresponsible spending. It is a time to cut budgets.

Finally, strong consideration should be given to Bill Richardson as a presidential candidate. He is Catholic, which will help in the Midwest. He is governor of New Mexico. And he has lots of foreign policy experience.

He needs to bear right in the next few years. But he is the man to beat in 2008.”

“I'd like to see the Democrats introduce a "Contract with America" early in 2006. They can sign it, promising to bring spending in line with revenue.

Stick Republican rhetoric back up their ass.”

““arclite, I believe there is a death penalty, because some states believe if you take a life, your life should be taken so you can't enjoy being alive. Even though you are limited in jail to your enjoyment of life, you can still be happy you are not dead. I'm not positive what privileges death row inmates have, but they may get magazines, books, and the ability to communicate with their loved ones either through phone calls or mail. The dead person lost these privileges.

Just as an added gift to the state, they don't have to pay to house this murderer anymore. It's very expensive to house an inmate. It also may give closure to the family that is suffering from losing a relative that was murdered.”

Lipstick Hiker



The death penalty is a very difficult ethical issue for me, Lips. It’s one opinion that I have changed over the years. After spending some time discussing the issue, listening to all sides, and examining how it fit into my principles, I decided that I could no longer support the death penalty. Here’s why I now think that way:


I don’t believe in “eye for an eye.” It hasn’t served the Middle East very effectively. Somebody needs to stop the cycle of violence. Why shouldn’t it be me?

Jail is not a happy place. Trust me on this, lipstick. There is nothing about jail that serves as a positive rehabilitation center for most behaviors. It’s sort of like the joke about how many psychologists it takes to change a light bulb. Only one, but the bulb’s really got to want to change.

Innocent people die as a result of the death penalty. I believe the evidence is overwhelming on this point. I don’t have faith in the infallibility of our justice system. I cannot EVER justify the killing of an innocent person, no matter how many “deserving” killers die. With a life sentence, at least an innocent person has a chance to be set free. Although I’ve seen shows where people who have spent years on death row are finally found innocent, they are set free, and they can’t make it in society because their lives have been irreparably destroyed by their time in prison. At least they still have the chance.

I have never seen a family who has got “closure” after a death sentence has been carried out. I have seen a couple of interviews with families before and after a death sentence has been carried out. The overriding emotion before seems to be an angry thirst for revenge. The overriding emotion after seems to be that an angry thirst for revenge is not a satisfying emotion. Every angry person I have seen interviewed seems to feel disappointed that revenge didn’t give him or her closure. I think that closure begins with acceptance. The only people who seem to get closure are those who try to accept and forgive.


So, do you think Hillary should get the death penalty BEFORE she gets a chance to screw the country?”

“I have also read the argument that it's more expensive to take someone through the entire death penalty process than to have a life sentence. The legal fees associated with the required appeals process is the trump card on the money argument. Correct?”

“OTOH, to quote Sam Jackson from one of the Grisham movies, "Yes I believe he deserves to die and I hope he burns in hell."

Thought I should balance out the comments. If I had a child molested I would probably agree with the above statement.”

“I think we should adopt the old Jewish custom of “safe cities”. When someone killed another person, even accidentally, the family of the victim was allowed to hunt the person down. The only way the killer could save himself was to make it to a safe city. Within the city he could not be killed for his crime and after a period of time he was clean of the crime. We could just pick a city that was so bad they would rather be killed. Some place like Cleveland or Little Rock.”

“arclite, you raise some very valid points, especially about killing someone who may be innocent.

If a person definitely killed someone in my family, I would be happy with the death penalty. Prisoners get too many privileges for me to be happy with a jail sentence, but even still, death seems like a good penalty for someone taking a life.

There is a man being tried for giving HIV to 5 woman on purpose, atleast that's how many have come down with it so far. He had unprotected sex with 17 women. I hate to misquote or wrongly paraphrase, but a father of one gal with HIV is in essense okay with the guy giving his daughter this death sentence. He wasn't going to hold it against him. There are those types of people out there too, I know.

I do understand that holding in the anger is detrimental to the friends and relatives, but he was really going too far with his "it's okay" attitude. This guy on trial also took the weekly paycheck from a mentally handicapped woman he was having sex with. I can understand acceptance, so the murderer does not ruin the life of the family, but I see no reason to forgive the person. There are people who say forgive murderers, but they are also people that have not suffered from the loss of a loved one.
last edited: 11/15/04 2:53:31 PM”