Texas carries out its 500th execution since 1982

[austinite]

It's a dilemma no matter how you slice it. If incarcerating them doesn't work then what is the answer?

The answer is to stop flooding the prison system. The most heavily populated countries in the world; China and India, don't have as many prisoners. What we're doing isn't working and needs to change. The most common "illegal" drug accounts for more prisoners than violent crime prisoners. Fix that problem alone... and That alone will eliminate more tax dollars than any of us could fathom.

[Sgt. Hartman]

Austin you got any stats of % of inmates by crime, but including both federal and state inmates?

[Lunk1]

The answer is to stop flooding the prison system. The most heavily populated countries in the world; China and India, don't have as many prisoners. What we're doing isn't working and needs to change. The most common "illegal" drug accounts for more prisoners than violent crime prisoners. Fix that problem alone... and That alone will eliminate more tax dollars than any of us could fathom.

So decriminalization is the solution? I don't think comparing China with the US is an accurate comparison. We enjoy rights and freedoms that would never fly in China. Ppl are not as likely to thumb their nose at the laws in China

[austinite]

So decriminalization is the solution? I don't think comparing China with the US is an accurate comparison. We enjoy rights and freedoms that would never fly in China. Ppl are not as likely to thumb their nose at the laws in China

Fair enough.

yeah, let the mother fvckers go. They smoked some shit, so what. Fight that war elsewhere.

[Lunk1]

Fair enough.

yeah, let the mother fvckers go. They smoked some shit, so what. Fight that war elsewhere.

For the record I don't disagree with decriminalization of drugs. I just don't think we have figured out the solution. If someone says rehab and treatment I'm coming through the damn screen lol.

[thegodfather]

So decriminalization is the solution? I don't think comparing China with the US is an accurate comparison. We enjoy rights and freedoms that would never fly in China. Ppl are not as likely to thumb their nose at the laws in China

This is truly a conversation for another thread. Yes, the answer is the decriminalization of all drugs. Aside from the fact that people use drugs regardless of whether they are legal or not, and the fact that rehabilitation programs are far more effective at curtailing drug use than a prison cell, and the fact that addiction is a MEDICAL problem not a LEGAL problem, the real cusp of the issue is a philosophical one.....That is, that prohibition is an attempt at LEGISLATING MORALITY, and we do not have the right to impose our morality unto others in a free country. Drug use hurts no one but the user, and people should have a right to damage their own bodies if they so wish, so long as their behavior does not hurt others. We should legislate BEHAVIOR, that is, acts which hurt others directly. You cannot for instance, get into your vehicle and drive under the influence of your drug of choice, be it alcohol or other. Yet, we should not be stopping responsible adults from putting what they wish into their bodies. The evidence points out, that the majority of crime associated with drug prohibition, is a RESULT of drug prohibition, and not rather, the drug use itself. The main street drugs are MINIMALLY REFINED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS, which should cost PENNIES PER DOSE! Because of prohibition, they cost SEVERAL DOLLARS PER DOSE, and the high cost, coupled with many of the other factors of prohibition, is what leads to the vast amount of crime associated with it.

[thegodfather]

For the record I don't disagree with decriminalization of drugs. I just don't think we have figured out the solution. If someone says rehab and treatment I'm coming through the damn screen lol.

I don't know what 'solution' you're looking for lunk. Adults have the RIGHT to put whatever substances they want into their bodies. The state has NO VESTED INTEREST in protecting people from themselves, and does not have the legal authority to do so, although it claims that it does. You cannot divorce your drug (steroids ) from the other drugs, it is a fallacious argument if you try to do so. If you have the right to put steroids into your body, which the large majority of the population believes you should not have, because a small minority of people use it to cheat in sports, is equivocal to a small minority of people who abuse prohibited substances. There will ALWAYS be a small minority of people who are addicted to certain substances, prohibition does NOT stop that. However, the Portugal model of decriminalization, now well into its 8th year, has been HUGELY effective at curtailing substance abuse through a combination of treatment, counseling, and lowering of prices per dose. Their biggest problems now come from the consumption of alcohol.

[Panzerfaust]

Do you really think a state run prison is a "profitable" business? They are all over crowded yet going broke...how "profitable" is that?

Do some research, America has even capitalized the Prison system. Lots of money being made incarcerating people

A system designed for recidivism, thus ensuring future profits.

[Lunk1]

I'm not disagreeing with you as I have read plenty on the Portugal model. If we were speaking only of a green leafy substance, that would be one thing. To lump all illegal drugs into the same prohibited category is silly. To believe that ICE usage is limited to the user only in terms of victimizing is also silly. Since rec drug use is prohibited I wont pick each one apart but they cant be lumped together when some have a physical addiction while others are a psychological addiction.

[Lunk1]

Do some research, America has even capitalized the Prison system. Lots of money being made incarcerating people

A system designed for recidivism, thus ensuring future profits.

Really. Show me the budget numbers of a state run prison that is in the black!

[Sgt. Hartman]

This is truly a conversation for another thread. Yes, the answer is the decriminalization of all drugs. Aside from the fact that people use drugs regardless of whether they are legal or not, and the fact that rehabilitation programs are far more effective at curtailing drug use than a prison cell, and the fact that addiction is a MEDICAL problem not a LEGAL problem, the real cusp of the issue is a philosophical one.....That is, that prohibition is an attempt at LEGISLATING MORALITY, and we do not have the right to impose our morality unto others in a free country. Drug use hurts no one but the user, and people should have a right to damage their own bodies if they so wish, so long as their behavior does not hurt others. We should legislate BEHAVIOR, that is, acts which hurt others directly. You cannot for instance, get into your vehicle and drive under the influence of your drug of choice, be it alcohol or other. Yet, we should not be stopping responsible adults from putting what they wish into their bodies. The evidence points out, that the majority of crime associated with drug prohibition, is a RESULT of drug prohibition, and not rather, the drug use itself. The main street drugs are MINIMALLY REFINED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS, which should cost PENNIES PER DOSE! Because of prohibition, they cost SEVERAL DOLLARS PER DOSE, and the high cost, coupled with many of the other factors of prohibition, is what leads to the vast amount of crime associated with it.

I don't disagree with that but what would be the end result of the general population having unlimited access to vaccines and antibiotics?

[Java Man]

As my mom used to say about pedophiles....."they should nail his balls to a table and push him over backwards!!! Justice served!!!!"

Mom always spoke her mind. Lol

That hurt just reading it

[ChiveOn]

Do some research, America has even capitalized the Prison system. Lots of money being made incarcerating people

A system designed for recidivism, thus ensuring future profits.

Do you understand how much it costs to incarcerate people? To build and maintain and staff the building? Are you kidding me? I worked in a Max Security joint. Although I agree that it's designed to keep a revolving door with these guys there's nothing profitable about it

[austinite]

I think it's time for hot broads before this becomes a religious debate and gets locked... Where's HOGGAGE?

[Java Man]

I'm against executions. And I don't care what the cost is to house those scumbags, it's not worth lowering myself to their level by taking their lives. The second you take their life, you become just as bad as them. We rationalize our blood-lust and desire for revenge by crying "justice," but does killing them right the wrongs they did? You'll never have justice no matter how many murderers and perverts you execute. It just doesn't undo what they did.

Besides, having to live with the weight of the acts you commit is worse than death.

And how many innocent men have wrongly be convicted of murder? If you want to see how unreliable witness testimony is, watch that Brain Games episode on it. Or watch the episode of Bullshit on forensics. Granted, most of those guys on death row DID their crimes, but there are people who are truly innocent there. I'd rather let every murderer go free before I condemn one innocent man to death.

I have no problem with that... As long as youre wiling to give each one your name and address upon release. Still want to set them free?

[--->>405<<---]

im still trying to figure out how honkey kong uses "literature" he claims not to believe in to justify his point of being anti death penalty!!?? the only thing that could make this worse is if he comes back and says he is also pro choice! (which would not surprise me at all)

[AD]

I think it's time for hot broads before this becomes a religious debate and gets locked... Where's HOGGAGE?

agreed. i am getting dizzy just scrolling down and long essays.

edit:
hey i just realized it was you who started this thread!! trouble maker!

[basketballfan22]

im still trying to figure out how honkey kong uses "literature" he claims not to believe in to justify his point of being anti death penalty!!?? the only thing that could make this worse is if he comes back and says he is also pro choice! (which would not surprise me at all)

I think his response was dead on. He was trying to appeal to religious people who cite scripture, and he explained how hypocritical it is. I am definitely pro choice too; but that's for another thread, lol. When you can converse with people by using topics they are familiar with, you do a very good job communicating with them on their level.

[basketballfan22]

Ths is bullshiat!! Hell yes child molesters should be killed.. Kill those freaks on the spot! Do you really think those children will ever be the same?! NO!! For those who can't handle 86ing murderers and child molesters step aside and let those who wear big boy pants take care of business. Example Jerry Sandusky.., done like dinner. Waste of space! I understand the process I've been to many many trails and these people should not be on ths earth. For those who have ths blazee attitude go to a trail and see how it kills a family. It has a cascading effect. So yes whack these freaks. The ones we don't kill make a combat unit wth thm. They should be on the front line... The first in harms way.

-Heat

That is one of the worst arguments I have ever heard. You read all of these very well-thought-out and educated posts against the death penalty, and your only response is one that is insulting (implying those that don't support capital punishment are little boys). If you can't retort with a logical reason to support your stance, then it's time to reevaluate it. You do realize that you actually hinder the case for capital punishment more than help it with responses like this, don't you? When you start letting frustration get the best of you because you can't logically defend your own stance, it looks very bad for the side as a whole you are supporting.

[basketballfan22]

This is truly a conversation for another thread. Yes, the answer is the decriminalization of all drugs. Aside from the fact that people use drugs regardless of whether they are legal or not, and the fact that rehabilitation programs are far more effective at curtailing drug use than a prison cell, and the fact that addiction is a MEDICAL problem not a LEGAL problem, the real cusp of the issue is a philosophical one.....That is, that prohibition is an attempt at LEGISLATING MORALITY, and we do not have the right to impose our morality unto others in a free country. Drug use hurts no one but the user, and people should have a right to damage their own bodies if they so wish, so long as their behavior does not hurt others. We should legislate BEHAVIOR, that is, acts which hurt others directly. You cannot for instance, get into your vehicle and drive under the influence of your drug of choice, be it alcohol or other. Yet, we should not be stopping responsible adults from putting what they wish into their bodies. The evidence points out, that the majority of crime associated with drug prohibition, is a RESULT of drug prohibition, and not rather, the drug use itself. The main street drugs are MINIMALLY REFINED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS, which should cost PENNIES PER DOSE! Because of prohibition, they cost SEVERAL DOLLARS PER DOSE, and the high cost, coupled with many of the other factors of prohibition, is what leads to the vast amount of crime associated with it.

What I am about to write is insulting and stereotypical, but you are the most intelligent conservative Republican I have ever met (or talked to online). Yes, I am very liberal (I hesitate to label myself a Democrat even though I tend to vote that way); but the conservative people I am familiar with are so thickheaded that it is frustrating. Although I don't agree with all of your posts, even the ones I don't agree with are very well-thought-out. I enjoy very much discussing and arguing topics with people like you who can clearly defend their opinions with logic and facts. I think your posts in this thread may be the most impressive posts I have ever read in this forum (and I like to believe I have a few very high-quality posts myself ).

[--->>405<<---]

I think his response was dead on. The point he was making was to appeal to religious people who cite scripture and explaining how hypocritical it is. I am definitely pro choice too; but that's for another thread, lol

The response was dead on u say? Why because Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek? Consider that capital punishment is government established. Jesus was speaking to believers in the scripture honkey kong quoted. Not non-believers and certailny not government entities. It was related to how we as christiansshould strive to deal with other people.

Consider this verse:
Romans 13:1-5

13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

Let me clue u in on something bball, we are all hypocrites my man.. All of us at some time or another.

[Honkey_Kong]

im still trying to figure out how honkey kong uses "literature" he claims not to believe in to justify his point of being anti death penalty!!?? the only thing that could make this worse is if he comes back and says he is also pro choice! (which would not surprise me at all)

I actually think there is a lot of good thoughts in the gospels, despite not believing in the religious aspects of it. But I was really using it to point that the christian faiths are not in support of this "eye for an eye" mentality that was in the old testament. In fact, the character Jesus very much opposed it.

I mean if I ever happen to read Dianetics and occasionally cite it, I don't think I'm going to start believing that I'm some immortal being that happened to forget my true nature.

I don't have a belief in God, but that doesn't mean I believe there isn't a deity at all. There very well could be. I just lack the prerequisite necessary to believe, faith. I've been to enough churches of many denominations over the years and met many great preachers, and still not convinced.

[austinite]

The response was dead on u say? Why because Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek? Consider that capital punishment is government established. Jesus was speaking to believers in the scripture honkey kong quoted. Not non-believers and certailny not government entities. It was related to how we as christiansshould strive to deal with other people.

Consider this verse:
Romans 13:1-5


Let me clue u in on something bball, we are all hypocrites my man.. All of us at some time or another.

I'm not a religious man, but I absolutely love your passion. Sometimes I wish I could be just as strong in finding faith.

[basketballfan22]

The response was dead on u say? Why because Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek? Consider that capital punishment is government established. Jesus was speaking to believers in the scripture honkey kong quoted. Not non-believers and certailny not government entities. It was related to how we as christiansshould strive to deal with other people.

Consider this verse:
Romans 13:1-7


Let me clue u in on something bball, we are all hypocrites my man.. All of us at some time or another.

Have you not read my posts, lol? I am well aware that everyone at some level at sometime is a hypocrite. I have admitted such in a few posts, lol. I don't agree with what you say about citing the Bible or any other religious text though. Non-believers can utilize such texts if they are familiar enough about them. You may not be a mathematician, but I wouldn't mind one bit if you used an analogy utilizing mathematics to explain a point.

[thegodfather]

What I am about to write is insulting and stereotypical, but you are the most intelligent conservative Republican I have ever met (or talked to online). Yes, I am very liberal (I hesitate to label myself a Democrat even though I tend to vote that way); but the conservative people I am familiar with are so thickheaded that it is frustrating. Although I don't agree with all of your posts, even the ones I don't agree with are very well-thought-out. I enjoy very much discussing and arguing topics with people like you who can clearly defend their opinions with logic and facts. I think your posts in this thread may be the most impressive posts I have ever read in this forum (and I like to believe I have a few very high-quality posts myself ).

Thanks man, I appreciate the compliments. I had a member once lobby for my banning because he said my posts were passive aggressive, in that I advocated for things he didn't agree with. I think its always preferential to use facts and reasoned arguments as opposed to ad hominem attacks on liberals such as, "wake up," "liberals are devoid of logic," etc and so on, which are simply empty statements with no meaning. What is your personal educational background?


@-405-: Why does one have to be a believer in order to point out the logical fallacy's which your argument presents? I for instance, do not have to be a Communist, to point out all of the flaws in Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto and Das Capital. I don't have to believe in the tenets of Communism, in order to quote passages from the books and use them in a manner which proves my point. So the problem with that argument you present, is that the majority of Christians in the press indulge in criticizing the savage Muslims for their intolerance and barbarism, whilst advocating water boarding, enhanced interrogation techniques, and extra judicial killings in the same sentence. It's equally as hypocritical and asinine to advocate for the death penalty, whilst opposing abortion at the same time, one to save a life, another to take it. No where in the Bible does God cede the authority to imperfect man to kill his creations. If you can find a specific passage which authorizes man to do so, I'd challenge you by retorting that the penumbra of passages in the Bible err's against man taking the punishments for sin into his own hands, meaning that the essence of the Bible when considered as a whole, its meaning when taken collectively, is that men do not have the authority to kill other men, even if they create a government which is an instrument of man, but where no one single man makes that decision to kill. Simply saying "we're all hypocrites," is not a sufficient defense against state sanctioned murder.

[basketballfan22]

Thanks man, I appreciate the compliments. I had a member once lobby for my banning because he said my posts were passive aggressive, in that I advocated for things he didn't agree with. I think its always preferential to use facts and reasoned arguments as opposed to ad hominem attacks on liberals such as, "wake up," "liberals are devoid of logic," etc and so on, which are simply empty statements with no meaning. What is your personal educational background?

That was clearly frustration from the member because he/she couldn't logically defend himself/herself. That is how it is in the real world. I have had a few times people want to punch me simply out of frustration because they couldn't defend their stance with words (you should see people with my younger brother, lol). As far as my educational background is concerned, I am a recent graduate with two bachelor's degrees in mathematics and ecology & evolutionary biology. I conducted a few undergraduate research projects, and I have taken both the general GRE and subject-based GRE. I plan to attend a fairly prestigious graduate school for my doctorate in pure mathematics (specifically in the field of algebraic topology) beginning Fall of 2014. I just need to get accepted. *crossing my fingers*

[--->>405<<---]

^^ actually the only post if urs i read was the one i quoted. I tried to go thru the whole thread but felt compelled to comment and couldnt make it much past page 1!!

U say "i dont agree with what you say about citing the bible.." Etc... The only thing i said was im trying to figure out how honkey can use a text he claims not to believe in to justify a position. Furthermore the text he cited does not support his claim. Did u read the scripture i cited?? It appears not.

Im not gonna continue in this stupid debate any further. The notion of a guy who says "i dont believe in God" while simultaneously misquoting Bible scripture is absurd. And u comparing it to mathematic is like comparing apples and oranges.

[basketballfan22]

^^ actually the only post if urs i read was the one i quoted. I tried to go thru the whole thread but felt compelled to comment and couldnt make it much past page 1!!

U say "i dont agree with what you say about citing the bible.." Etc... The only thing i said was im trying to figure out how honkey can use a text he claims not to believe in to justify a position. Furthermore the text he cited does not support his claim. Did u read the scripture i cited?? It appears not.

Im not gonna continue in this stupid debate any further. The notion of a guy who says "i dont believe in God" while simultaneously misquoting Bible scripture is absurd. And u comparing it to mathematic is like comparing apples and oranges.

Sorry, I didn't mean posts in this thread. I have made posts in other threads admitting my own hypocrisy. Don't you read every single post of mine? Geez!

I actually did read your entire post, but it fails in convincing me on the matter. I don't agree with your words of frustration either. It makes your argument weak. My analogy is an accurate one I maintain. It makes no sense to base one's stance on the Bible when that same book has verses that go against its own words. If you want to base every opinion you have by using the Bible, then you should be prepared to hear counterarguments using the book you read out of. Again, just because one doesn't believe in the book, doesn't mean they can't use its words. In fact the people who are aware of the Bible's words but still don't believe in the Bible are far more credible because at least they have knowledge about the topic they don't believe in. It makes no sense to say you don't believe in something when you don't even know anything about the "something" you don't believe in.

[ppwc1985]

The response was dead on u say? Why because Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek? Consider that capital punishment is government established. Jesus was speaking to believers in the scripture honkey kong quoted. Not non-believers and certailny not government entities. It was related to how we as christiansshould strive to deal with other people.

Consider this verse:
Romans 13:1-5

Let me clue u in on something bball, we are all hypocrites my man.. All of us at some time or another.

This^^^^ I was going to explain it the same way, what scripture he quoted was more to individuals than to governments. Well said 405.

[austinite]

Sgt. Hartman and I are going out for a beer. Be back later.

[Lunk1]

[--->>405<<---]

[QUOTE=thegodfather;6596414]

@-405-: Why does one have to be a believer in order to point out the logical fallacy's which your argument presents?

logical fallacy in your opinion is what u meant to say right?

No where in the Bible does God cede the authority to imperfect man to kill his creations.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...15&version=NIV
15 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

If you can find a specific passage which authorizes man to do so,

hold on a minute, u just stated above:

"No where in the Bible does God cede the authority to imperfect man to kill his creations."

you cant have it both ways. maybe before making absolute statements u should be sure of them first??

I'd challenge you by retorting that the penumbra of passages in the Bible err's against man taking the punishments for sin into his own hands, meaning that the essence of the Bible when considered as a whole, its meaning when taken collectively, is that men do not have the authority to kill other men, even if they create a government which is an instrument of man, but where no one single man makes that decision to kill.

according to romans 13:1-2 the govt is an instrument of GOD not man..

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

Simply saying "we're all hypocrites," is not a sufficient defense against state sanctioned murder.

saying we are all hypocrites was not intended to be a defense for the death penalty, but more so a response to BBall singling out "religious people" as being hypocritical by citing scripture which may directly contradict actions they are guilty of committing. my contention is we are ALL guilty of hypocrisy, so lets not single out the Christian.. romans 13:4 -

4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

could be cause to support the death penalty in part.

now im going to bed dammit! go death penalty!! woo!! HOO!!!!!!

[basketballfan22]

Sgt. Hartman and I are going out for a beer. Be back later.

Lol, you started this!

[--->>405<<---]

I don't agree with your words of frustration either.

ok i was going to bed but i will respond to this. u misinterpret my intentions behind labeling this argument as stupid. i did not make that statement out of frustration. i made it because i think this argument is stupid..

frustration would be indicative of me finding my position as being inferior to yours and as a result of having no more "ammunition" i felt compelled to resort to name calling and "taking my ball and going home".. this is not the case. i simply think this argument is stupid..

nitey nite..

[basketballfan22]

So God created governments? He is responsible for the Nazi regime, not Hitler? Poor Adolf. Here the whole world hates the man, but in reality he was merely a servant of God.

[basketballfan22]

ok i was going to bed but i will respond to this. u misinterpret my intentions behind labeling this argument as stupid. i did not make that statement out of frustration. i made it because i think this argument is stupid..

frustration would be indicative of me finding my position as being inferior to yours and as a result of having no more "ammunition" i felt compelled to resort to name calling and "taking my ball and going home".. this is not the case. i simply think this argument is stupid..

nitey nite..

Okay, fair enough.

[Lunk1]

[basketballfan22]

Okay, this is probably even more disturbing. It is one thing to believe in capital punishment, but how can people want to watch the executions?!? It is sick! It is the same thing when bin Laden was killed, and you had people wanting to see his dead body. God the human race can be very disgusting. I recall when Saddam Hussein was being executed, there were people that went on the Internet to watch it. There is seriously something wrong with someone wanting to watch another person get killed, regardless if the person is a "bad person."

[Lunk1]

Okay, this is probably even more disturbing. It is one thing to believe in capital punishment, but how can people want to watch the executions?!? It is sick! It is the same thing when bin Laden was killed, and you had people wanting to see his dead body. God the human race can be very disgusting. I recall when Saddam Hussein was being executed, there were people that went on the Internet to watch it. There is seriously something wrong with someone wanting to watch another person get killed, regardless if the person is a "bad person."

So sensitive lol.

[Sgt. Hartman]

Sgt. Hartman and I are going out for a beer. Be back later.

Only if the carbs in them are complex lol.

And the question 405 wasn't whether we should subject ourselves to the governments authority, the question is whether the judicial branch of our government has the right, in principle, to take a life or not.

And talk about misquoting the bible.....did Daniel subject himself to his governing authority? Hell no and how many countless others (christians) , under the authority of god, in the bible didn't either? That's because the bible (according to the bible) is the primary governing authority and it tells you to subject yourself to the regulations of your government but only so far as they don't contradict the bible which is open to entirely too much ambiguity and interpretation. With all due respect you using the bible to substantiate your beliefs is as ridiculous as HK using it to justify his. Only difference is you believe and he doesn't.

Damn it I usually stay out of this shlt lets go get that beer now......