and dixie chicks never even implied any one should DIE,,,,

interesting,,,,

by that logic, an injustice against one is an injustice against all,,,so there is likewise no need for other pundits to speak up at every injustice,,,

haaa @ 'like' a conviction,,,,,,

you do realize psychology is the science created to 'rationalize' poor choices and therefore justify them?


I dont think it can really even be called a science.

why do people drink too much ..alcoholism
why do people act dumb on the road....road rage
why do people act like, excuse the phrase, sluts...sexual addiction

,,and the list goes on and on and on,,,,

so why does this particular administration receive such unique status for something that those with 'money' have had the power and used the power over for decades?

really? What non political issue does Ron Paul publicly address?

outside of Jesus being the son of God and sacrificed for sin

I still am not sure I can concede that peoples 'beliefs' can be proven to be in any way strictly the result of a religion

religion came from many things that were already cutural beliefs,, I dont know how or why people seperate the two as if religion is a unique root to values or how people believe or write laws,,,,

a lady, a logical thinker, a peace keeper,,,,,,

and you know this how?

ever a 'conviction' for his drug dealing or gang banging?

or does he have to fit a higher standard than the man who was 'booked' for aggressive actions several times but now is excused for not being 'charged',...?

let me know when you find that individual who publicly protests EVERY incident of unfairness in the country,,,,

its not 'now' though,,, such restrictions are NOT NEW,,,,

Perhaps more 'heros' will luck up and follow around a 'suspicious' teen who actually has committed graffiti and possibly smoked weed, ignite a physical fight, and kill them


perhaps they will likewise follow around kids who did drugs, went to rehab, committed physical aggressoin against others,, or any other host of 'crimes' worthy of being valueless as a human,,,,

its not that simple really



Such claims are typical in the public debate over whether to toughen penalties for those convicted of sex crimes. But they also distort a complex reality, according to experts who study how often sex offenders commit new crimes.

Recidivism rates for convicted sex offenders vary greatly, ranging from less than 5 percent to more than 50 percent, based on such factors as the victim's gender, the offender's relationship to the victim and whether the offender has received treatment, multiple studies have shown. In general, younger men who abuse boys they don't know have the highest risks of re-offending.

Taken as a group, about 14 percent of convicted sex offenders committed new sex crimes over a five-year period and about 20 percent did so over a 10-year period, according to Canadian researcher Karl Hanson's widely cited review of studies involving more than 4,700 offenders.

Recidivism rates for sex offenders drop for those who receive treatment to help them control their impulses and steer clear of dangerous situations, recent studies have shown.

In Vermont, for instance, correctional officials tracked 195 adult male sex offenders over a six-year period. The sexual re-offense rate for those who completed treatment was 5.4 percent, versus a 30 percent rate for those who refused treatment or did not complete it.

Dr. Fred Berlin, assistant professor of psychology at Johns Hopkins University and the founder of a sexual disorder clinic there, likened sex offenders to alcoholics. Alcoholics can be treated and learn to manage their disease.

Sexual offenders have "a craving disorder," he said. "It's not like an infection that can be cured." While treatment is not effective on everyone, he said, it appears to be more effective than the public may think.

"It's really a judgment where you have to look at the individual," said Berlin.


http://www.vnews.com/sexcrimes/recidivism.htm

that is not true..

the contexts in which verses are written is important, as most christians should realize

out of context reference to verses are used against us all the time....


there are those who interpret the verses on violence as a free pass to aggress against non believers

just like there are those who interpret Gods decisions as proof of a violent and vindictive God


there are verses in isolation which refer to violence against infidels

there are also verses which discourage violence against NON AGGRESSORS (believers or not)...

no,, saying its ok is saying its ok

choosing not to publicly voice an opinion, is choosing your battles

advocates have special areas they go to battle for,,,

a bill passed 399-3 by the house...

wouldnt he be more of a 'dictator' if he had vetoed it?...

so cool when mainstream entertainment encourages kids to 'read',,,lol

so cool when mainstream entertainment encourages kids to 'read',,,lol

In Citizens United, what the court said is that Congress has no authority to regulate this kind of political speech,” said Edwards. “And so all of these constitutional amendments go to this question of giving Congress the authority that the Supreme Court, I think wrongly, decided isn't within Congress's constitutional--our constitutional purview.



it actually makes sense,,,its a case of supreme courts interpretation of the consitution being controversial

some thing citizens united should stand, and others dont

the same as it has/will be with healthcare reform,,,,