Officially coming out now

Or maybe like Judah under Amon which thought David had a bit better idea than the current king? </font>[/QUOTE]What??? I thought mine was the "bit better idea"

I did notice though---on my trip to the UK last year-----the jet liner taking off from Charlotte to London didn't have an empty seat on it----but on the way back to the States----there was but a scant few of us---and we could "stretch out a bit"

But clearly---it can be seen that mine is the "bit better idea!"

 

This is the way i see the polls.

Polls were taken before the second election where Bush won. the polls at that time were showing Bush ratings down (i believe 46%) yet he was still elected by the majority. showing support for All he was doing.

Polls are strongly swayed by the liberal media lying and making Bush or any republican look bad. just go to any nonchristian college and you will hear their liberal propaganda being preached day in and day out.

Polls are swayed when most are answering based on FEELINGS and not based on intellect on real issues and long term goals.

Polls are swayed by the areas in which the polls are taken.

Polls are swayed in the way questions are asked.

I agree that this war has gone on too long. it is natural for Americans to want a "quick" fix and "quick" results. but that isn't how things always work.
So although many may agree that Bush did the right thing by going to war and wouldn't change a thing in that regard. many may NOT agree with how LONG it is taking and the way he has gone about it.

Bottom line is I believe most here in America and Iraq AGREE with the war, but not how long it is taking. maybe they should do a POLL asking those questions!

 

PROBLEM WITH POLLS CHECK OUT THESE LINKS

http://www.wadsworth.com/politicalscience_d/special_features/ext/amgov/political_behavior/ftr_pubop1.html

 

Does anyone really put much stock in polls?

I haven't read much of this thread but here is my opinion, war is hell. It's terrible. Does anyone decent really relish war? Enjoy seeing all the deaths? I don't think so, but sometimes war is necessary. Women tend to be more emotional about things and this is a very good reason I think women shouldn't be President or be making these kind of decisions.

 

AMEN Rachel

 

I'm not Gina, but I have a problem with it!

 

I'm not Gina, but I have a problem with it! </font>[/QUOTE]Let me challenge you Terry---instead of thinking like that----get into the truth of WHY God commanded what He did--telling those Israelites to dispose of the inhabitants---its simple---pure judgment because of evil works. Because if a person has a problem with what God did to those in the OT---they'll have a problem with a war that is yet to come---you know---that place in Megiddo where the blood will run the depth of the horses' bridles. And like it or not---the Lord Jesus is going to come to take revenge on evil and to make war on the inhabitants of the earth--and guess what??? You're gonna be "taggin' along" WITH Him!!!---there won't be any consciencious objecting going on then!!!---not even subconscienciously. You'll see then with the mind of Christ---and you'll know without question that revenge must be executed!

[ April 17, 2006, 08:42 AM: Message edited by: blackbird ]

 

Anyone who has no problem with slaughtering others, especially children, because they think God commanded it should seriously question the voices in their head and lay off the pharmaceuticals!

 

...or ignore the Old Testament.

 

So, webdog, you would murder if you believed God told you to do so? That is scary! Susan Smith in SC thought God told her to kill her kids, so she did. Andrea Yates thought so too. David Berkowitz heard voices telling him to kill. "God told me to do it" probably would not keep you from the death chamber.

 

MP---nobody is advocating killing of innocent women and children here---but there is no denying that it was done in the name of Jehovah God in various parts of the OT---BUT---the destruction of flesh--even then---was never done without a God given opportunity of repentance

Example

The conversation that the two spies had with Rahab there at Jericho

Says Rahab

We have heard what God did for you at the Red Sea! We have heard of the innilation of Pharoah and his men

The key phrase from Rahab's lips is

We have heard what God did

The destruction did not come without first the word of God preceeding it and the people of God making an exit from "Ground Zero!"

 

So Magnetic Poles i would assume you oppose the death penalty too?

 

Joshua 6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

Joshua 6:27 So the LORD was with Joshua; and his fame was noised throughout all the country.

 

Frenchy, that has nothing to do with being opposed to killing people just because one thinks God wants them to do so. That is a different matter entirely, so you may address that point.

But I will answer your question. I used to be very pro death penalty. Then I have seen time after time after time, men on death row exonerated by DNA evidence, which was unavailable at the time of their conviction. For that reason, I have changed my mind, and am against capital punishment.

We also have a hard time getting justice because of being one of the few countries other than radical Islamic nations that still execute criminals. For example, last year here in Denver, a police officer was murdered by a Mexican national who was living in this city. The cop was doing off-duty traffic work at a private party, and the gunman shot him in cold blood. The killer then ran back to Mexico. The only way we could get an extradition was to promise Mexico he would not face the death penalty. So, by leaving the country, this killer will face justice, but the state of Colorado cannot seek to take his life. Had we not had capital punishment in this state, his return to face justice would have not taken the months it ended up taking, and I must add, his return was not certain at all during negotiations.

 

I wouldn't be against the death penalty, but against the railroading of those suspected of murder without anything more than circumstancial evidence to convict them. I still belive once a person is convicted without a shadow of a doubt that he deserves to be put to death.

DNA evidence should always be the determining factor in a conviction, now that we have that knowledge.

 

But suppose there were no DNA??

What is your point, Salamander---No DNA=no conviction??

You can murder someone without a trace of suspects DNA anywhere in the area

 

Never mind new thread for this one

 

The trouble is, Salamander, is that there is no legal test of "without a shadow of a doubt". For criminal cases, the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt". In civil cases it is a "perponderance of the evidence" to convict. Even so, all the innocents on death row were convicted by a jury who felt the state met the test of proving beyond a reasonable doubt.

Some crimes are so heinous that my emotions cry out for the ultimate penalty. My rational mind says otherwise. I, like our justice system, would rather a criminal go free than to execute a person who is innocent.

 

This is without a doubt---the most intelligent post on this thread thusfar!!

God bless your heart, Kilad!!

I've had three "soldier boy" church members(ranked from Lt. Colonel to Master Sargeant to Specialist 4) who toured in Iraq----one did a double tour of Afganistan and then a year and a half in Iraq. All returned back safe and sound!!