Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2010 11:05:54 GMT -5
Perhaps you could do with a revolution yourself. Why? To what end? Americans get the government they deserve. A people without principles does not elect principled representatives.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Oct 13, 2010 12:23:54 GMT -5
Perhaps you could do with a revolution yourself. Why? To what end? Something to do on a wet Wednesday afternoon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2010 10:55:31 GMT -5
To get rid of the people in power who are oppressing the population.
|
|
beez0811
Craftsman
Nerdypants!!
Posts: 1,617
|
Post by beez0811 on Oct 14, 2010 20:50:35 GMT -5
You can do it your way, thankfully we do things our way. A life for a life, an eye for an eye, etc etc its biblical stuff from 2000 years ago and yes I find it barbaric. There's more than one way to skin a cat. Actually, a Muslim man that I respect explained the whole "eye for an eye" bit to me. It means no more than an eye. If Ashley shot a rubberband across the room and hit Mandy in the eye, Ashley would get a rubberband to her eye and nothing more. Is it "humane" what some murderers do to their victims? Some have NO remorse and revel in their evil. Don't they deserve the ultimate penalty for this? What a weird place the USA is. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, this has so much in common with Sharia law its spooky. There is a good deal more than the Atlantic between us. We execute for mainly murder. Sharia law calls for the execution of people for crimes that aren't murder. You may yet reinstate the death penalty, if you continue to allow muslims to enter your country and breed, legally or otherwise. No, I think not, Joseph. We will probably have civil strife though. And, for the record, we don't let them in, the political parties do. Doesn't Sharia law (Which England wanted to also have along with their current laws) call for death on many things that aren't even murder?
|
|
beez0811
Craftsman
Nerdypants!!
Posts: 1,617
|
Post by beez0811 on Oct 14, 2010 20:54:43 GMT -5
Well......I go back and forth on the death penalty......but seriously......if it is a case that he's already been sentenced and they are going to do it and don't know how......just friggin' shoot him......he raped and killed a 15 yr old!!!!! I'm sure one of the family members would be more than willing to carry it out. I'm just sick of the debate over it all......either yes or no. If the state has the penalty....than put your big boy pants on and carry it out or don't have it. Agreed. California needs to either start carrying out their sentences or get rid of the death penalty in their state (or at least stop sentencing more people to death while in decision limbo). More inmates on their death row die from natural causes rather than dying from execution.
|
|
beez0811
Craftsman
Nerdypants!!
Posts: 1,617
|
Post by beez0811 on Oct 14, 2010 21:10:22 GMT -5
No, it does in Europe as well. You terror-bombed civilian targets in World War 2. I don't see you apologizing to the survivors of those you deliberately put to death. It's alright to those in that state. Others can't say #hit about it. Whether you like it or not, the nation-state exists to define matters of life and death. It alone has the moral authority to kill people. The people themselves give the state that authority. If it didn't, society would not exist. Joseph, WW II cannot be compared to everyday domestic law, we've done that one before and I'm surprised you wheeled that red herring out again. The nation-state in this case does not have any authority - from the people or otherwise - to kill. Strangely, our society exists. Asking and/or ordering someone to kill another individual or group of people is the same thing. The ones asking should be held more responsible for the death(s). If they didn't ask (bribe) or order the deaths of said individuals or a group of people, those people might still be alive. The ones that did the dirty work should also be punished. The possible hitman could turn in the person that asked for aid in murdering another individual if they wanted instead of going through with the murder.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Oct 15, 2010 2:30:12 GMT -5
Joseph, WW II cannot be compared to everyday domestic law, we've done that one before and I'm surprised you wheeled that red herring out again. The nation-state in this case does not have any authority - from the people or otherwise - to kill. Strangely, our society exists. Asking and/or ordering someone to kill another individual or group of people is the same thing. The ones asking should be held more responsible for the death(s). If they didn't ask (bribe) or order the deaths of said individuals or a group of people, those people might still be alive. The ones that did the dirty work should also be punished. The possible hitman could turn in the person that asked for aid in murdering another individual if they wanted instead of going through with the murder. Tosh per sure. Another one who thinks that peacetime law and order is exactly the same as fighting for national survival There seems to be a lot of that in the US. One day when you as a people really do have to fight for your survival you might see sense, but I doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Oct 15, 2010 2:51:59 GMT -5
Actually, a Muslim man that I respect explained the whole "eye for an eye" bit to me. It means no more than an eye. If Ashley shot a rubberband across the room and hit Mandy in the eye, Ashley would get a rubberband to her eye and nothing more. Doesn't Sharia law (Which England wanted to also have along with their current laws) call for death on many things that aren't even murder? A muslim man you respect explained it, eh. You are aware, I take it, that religious texts are a matter of interpretation. Perhaps you'd like to explain it to Lashkar e Tayyaba, Islam4UK, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, Muslim Council of Britain and Wahhabism in general. You could even try reading the Qu'ran. You execute and that's barbaric enough, you still have some commonality with Islamic states - which is what I implied. "Doesn't Sharia law (Which England wanted " ROFL, very funny. Where did you get the idea that England wants sharia law? The archidiot of Canterbury? As if!
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Oct 15, 2010 3:03:30 GMT -5
Doesn't Sharia law (Which England wanted to also have along with their current laws) call for death on many things that aren't even murder? England doesnt want sharia law...some people living in England want sharia...and guess what some people in England have sharia....there are at least 7 uk sharia courts..so far they havent manage to go beyond family courts but have already given decissions which go AGAINST English law and one case of blood money in a murder case it is only eegits such as the arch of cant who are infavour of sharia but i do believe even that idiot would draw the line at a public stoning.. many muslims are against sharia...they know its the thin end of the wedge....be careful what you wish for
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Oct 15, 2010 4:53:45 GMT -5
Doesn't Sharia law (Which England wanted to also have along with their current laws) call for death on many things that aren't even murder? England doesnt want sharia law...some people living in England want sharia...and guess what some people in England have sharia....there are at least 7 uk sharia courts..so far they havent manage to go beyond family courts but have already given decissions which go AGAINST English law and one case of blood money in a murder case it is only eegits such as the arch of cant who are infavour of sharia but i do believe even that idiot would draw the line at a public stoning.. many muslims are against sharia...they know its the thin end of the wedge....be careful what you wish for
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Oct 15, 2010 5:20:14 GMT -5
i can remeber having to show an identity card to cross a bridge...war time rules are very different...and very understandable
|
|