|
Post by mouse on Jul 16, 2010 9:24:26 GMT -5
on a personal level i am pro death sentence .. how ever and again on a personal level i want the sentence to be carried out swiftly and as cleanly as is possible as i have no wish to inflict suffering on any human and i would be taking their life BECAUSE they made another hman suffer and to prevent them from breaking sociatal rules yet again and re tony martin...he was well within his rights to shoot in defence of himself and his property..he and his property had been under sustained if intermittent attack the answer is if you dont want to be shot...keep out and off what DOES NOT belong to you
|
|
|
Post by Wonder Woman on Jul 16, 2010 9:47:09 GMT -5
on a personal level i am pro death sentence .. how ever and again on a personal level i want the sentence to be carried out swiftly and as cleanly as is possible as i have no wish to inflict suffering on any human Okay. Many pros would not be pros if we made those convicted of murder suffer. So, if they just shot their murder victim(s) through the head or gave them a lethal dose of morphine, you wouldn't execute them? They can be prevented from breaking societal rules without executing them so that's not a good reason to kill. Hey kids, don't run after that ball that went into the neighbor's yard!!
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 16, 2010 11:25:33 GMT -5
you can make people suffer by depriving them of a loved child..wife,,husband etc ...if you have a cancer you rid of the core so it cannot reocur err kids..balls !!!!am not as you are aware talking of kids and balls......but of thieving tresspasers..thugs usually in the deep of the night..
|
|
|
Post by biglin on Jul 16, 2010 12:17:04 GMT -5
We have already established that no executions are civilized, no matter how they're done. There is no such thing as a civilized execution.
Who's WE. Joe? And when did 'we' establish anything like that?
Or should you have written like this:
'I don't believe that any executions are civilized, no matter how they're done. There is no such thing as a civilized execution.'
The merciful don't execute in the first place. The merciful are opposed to capital punishment. You cannot mercifully kill someone if the merciful option is to refrain from killing.
That's just your opinion and not a fact, Joe. Even so, I suppose it does explain why you're an anti and just pretend to be a pro if you believe that!
You just don't get it, do you. If you have already decided to kill a human being to punish him for what he's done, you have already considered mercy and rejected it.
An execution is an execution, whether by lethal injection or by wood chipper. It has always been that way, and always will
No, Joe, YOU'RE the one who doesn't 'get it.' In the first place, ANY kind of punishment involves more or less 'mercy.' Do you send a 3-year old child who steals sweets from a shop to prison for life? Or execute them?
What you are DISHONESTLY calling 'mercy' is ACTUALLY showing a sense of PROPORTION.
An execution is a proportionate response to murder.
Burning someone alive is NOT a proportionate response to murder.
The civilized do not execute. Period.
Again, just your opinion and NOT a fact. You really do need to try to sort out the difference between your opinions and FACTS, Joe.
Still, like I said earlier, your last sentence shows why you ARE an anti and your whole pose as an extreme pro is just that - a bad wind-up at best and conscious hypocrisy at worst.
Why don't you just come OUT of the closet and ADMIT that you really ARE an anti dishonestly PRETENDING to be a pro?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2010 13:28:06 GMT -5
Who's WE. Joe? And when did 'we' establish anything like that? The majority of U.S. pros, even the weak ones, are deaf to the "civilization" argument. From what I read, that's fairly obvious. Or should you have written like this: 'I don't believe that any executions are civilized, no matter how they're done. There is no such thing as a civilized execution.' I could have. I didn't. That's just your opinion and not a fact, Joe. It's a fact. Mercy is defined thus: compassion or forbearance shown to an offender or subject : clemency or kindness extended to someone instead of strictness or severity. Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. unabridged.merriam-webster.com (20 Jul. 2010). One cannot be compassionate or forbearing in deliberately and retributively killing someone. Compassionate is defined as a ready inclination to pity, sympathy or tenderness. Forebearance is defined as holding back. If you're strapping down someone who is already captive, you are not being compassionate, since the condemned does not want to die, and you are not holding back, since you are punishing him as harshly as possible. I suppose it does explain why you're an anti and just pretend to be a pro if you believe that! I'm an authentic, unabashed, old school, Hebraic pro. I can look an anti in the eye, counter each of his arguments and gain his respect. You, however, cannot, because you're a hypocrite and a fake. ANY kind of punishment involves more or less 'mercy.' Any punishment short of death, that is. Do you send a 3-year old child who steals sweets from a shop to prison for life? Not a three-year-old, no. But that isn't based on compassion. What you are DISHONESTLY calling 'mercy' is ACTUALLY showing a sense of PROPORTION. Proportionate sentencing is not based on mercy or compassion. It is nothing more than creating a heirarchy of punishment. Mercy is only pity, and pity has no place in jurisprudence -- ever. An execution is a proportionate response to murder. Burning someone alive is NOT a proportionate response to murder. It's exactly the same, as is grinding the condemned into hamburger. Killing is killing. The method of killing has no moral content, because the morality of the punishment is already established. just your opinion and NOT a fact. Nope, that the civilized refrain from execution is a fact. Let's look at the meaning of the word civilized.to cause (as a people) to develop out of a primitive state through establishment of a system of social custom and political organization : instruct in the rules and standards of a civil order b : to bring (a people) to a technically advanced and rationally ordered stage of development of knowledge, polity, and international relations. (Ibid.) Executions predate recorded history. As such an execution is indisputably a primitive punishment. It certainly isn't technically advanced, nor is it much concerned with either polity or international relations. There is therefore no such thing as a "civilized" execution. That is fine with me. After all, the point of an execution is to deter murder, not killing. The point of an execution is to enforce respect for the law. The malevolent approach works best for that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2010 13:42:31 GMT -5
he would NOT punish Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot or similar murderers and yet he WOULD punish an MVS who killed her daughter's murderer, a man (Tony Martin) who killed a burglar breaking into his home. Legally speaking, neither Hitler, Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot committed murder, since murder is a crime against the state. They didn't violate national laws against murder, since they were the law, and didn't violate any international laws, either, since there is no international law against murder, or even against mass murder. Vigilante murder, however, is illegal in all 50 states, as it should be. Defending one's life in one's home is not illegal, in any of them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2010 13:56:10 GMT -5
Punishable by whom and according to what statute? If it's not against the law, than it comports to the law. As such it is legally acceptable. Apparently you don't like Tony Blair. You haven't, however, established his guilt under the laws of England. It doesn't work like that, joseph. I did tell you.... Impeachment, in the British sense, is an accusation of improper conduct or crime by an elected official. In the UK, an MP can stand up in the House of Commons on a point of order and move "that the Prime Minister be impeached." If the Speaker of the House permits, a debate will be held on the officials alleged high crimes and then a vote called. Should the vote go against the Prime Minister, they will be arrested by the Serjeant-at-Arms and then handed to Black Rod in the House of Lords, who will the decide if bail will be permitted. The MP who called the impeachment debate will then go to the House of Lordsand inform peers that impeachment proceedings have begun and that the articles for impeachment will be presented "in due time". Once the articles of impeachments have been formally passed to the Upper House, peers will set a date for the trial, which would probably be held in Westminster Hall. During the trials, the Lords would act as jury and the Commons would appoint 'managers' to act as counsel for the prosecution. After all sides1 have presented their evidence, the peers would be asked whether the Prime Minister is guilty or not guilty on each article of impeachment. Should the Prime Minister be found not guilty, impeachment is dismissed. However, if a verdict of guilty is returned by the Lords, MPs in the House of Commons will decide the sentence, which will probably be the removal of the Prime Minister from office. I hope this helps to clear things up. It doesn't. My original statement was you haven't, however, established his guilt under the laws of England. Your description of the British impeachment process does not illustrate which specific laws Mr. Blair is alleged to have broken while in office. Presumably he is still amenable to prosecution, even while out of office, as are former U.S. presidents. Why, then, has he still not been charged? Indeed, if he's such a criminal, as you lefties suggest, why is he getting something like $250,000 for a 90-minute speech?
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 20, 2010 14:59:11 GMT -5
he hasnt been charged because of lack of proof...we need proof...but the clock is ticking..he is being brought back to the chilcot enquirey[in its self quite a step]as the proof gathers and more and more people become uneasy...then hopefully he will be btrought to book....it is generally acepted that he lied....now we have to prove he lied and its not us uk who are paying him to speak...and the fact he is getting $250,000 dollars from fools and doesnt pay his own security is vomit inducing..of course the arabs pay him much more but the amounts are shhhhhhhhhhhhhh...and there is a question looming about blair,,bp and lybia and a certain meghri who isnt dead and the strange death of dr kelly..... there may be trouble ahead..i dont care what they get the slimey tove on as long as they get him... and you think i am a leftie.... ;D ;Dthat is utterly sublime as most peeps are inclined to see me right of ghengis khan..i will let fretty speak for him self
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 20, 2010 15:02:06 GMT -5
and of course you cannot charge a man for having no morals what ever.... moral standards and blair were strangers
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 20, 2010 15:06:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 20, 2010 15:31:20 GMT -5
her you are,,an opinion on the blairs i just came acoss on another site -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Consumed by greed, deaf to considerations of propriety, Tony and Cherie Blair continue to enhance their reputation as one of the most unedifying couples on the world stage. At the weekend, the Mail exposed Mr Blair's secret visit to Colonel Gaddafi last month, days after he had denied being an adviser to the Libyan dictator behind the Lockerbie bombing. Today, we reveal how his wife flew in a private jet to Albania as the guest of an oil tycoon who faces criminal charges of beating up an anti-corruption journalist. Without a hint of irony, Mrs Blair even congratulated the unsavoury Rezart Taci on his commitment to Press freedom, as she performed an inauguration ceremony at his Alsat TV station." www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/articl....me-Britain.htmlThey're still at it!..utter utter greedy sc-u-m
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2010 15:33:58 GMT -5
lying to parliament ...is the most important OK, what British law prohibits lying to members of Parliament. taking the country to an illegal war Again, which law did he break? Furthermore, how many prime ministers have NOT broken it, if such a law exists? falsyfying evidence or getting some one else to do it What "evidence" did he "falsify?" And which law did he break in "falsifying" it? I see no evidence anywhere Mr. Blair is even under suspicion, or the subject of a criminal investigation. Your moral indignation is evident, but your grounds to put him in prison are not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2010 15:39:16 GMT -5
he hasnt been charged because of lack of proof...we need proof...but the clock is ticking..he is being brought back to the chilcot enquirey [in its self quite a step] as the proof gathers and more and more people become uneasy...then hopefully he will be btrought to book....it is generally accepted that he lied....now we have to prove he lied You also have to prove his lying to be illegal. You haven't yet, and I doubt anyone in England will. its not us uk who are paying him to speak...and the fact he is getting $250,000 dollars from fools and doesnt pay his own security is vomit inducing..of course the arabs pay him much more but the amounts are shhhhhhhhhhhhhh...and there is a question looming about blair,,bp and lybia and a certain meghri who isnt dead and the strange death of dr kelly Your anger doesn't seem to matter much to English law enforcement. Why? you think i am a leftie.... ;D ;Dthat is utterly sublime as most peeps are inclined to see me right of ghengis khan..i will let fretty speak for him self It's the lefties who have been most opposed to the war in Iraq, and seem to be most upset about presidential (or ministerial) lying. That a nation's chief executive lies doesn't bother me at all. That is part of his/her job.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jul 20, 2010 18:23:17 GMT -5
It's the lefties who have been most opposed to the war in Iraq, and seem to be most upset about presidential (or ministerial) lying.
That a nation's chief executive lies doesn't bother me at all. That is part of his/her job. But, Joseph, a lie is not always just a lie. A lie, for example, about playing footsie with lobbiests is a political tool for the opposition - not a grievous wrong. But, a lie that's used as an overblown excuse to take us into war is extremely immoral. I can't help but empathize with the families of the kids who died as a result ... not to mention the Iraqis who were blown away in the glitzy horror of shock and awe. I'm pretty sure you're going to respond with an opinion (in so many words) that war IS hell - grow up - face reality, etc etc etc . From where I sit, war is a hell that is sometimes necessary. OTOH, a war concocted from false information, not necessary but convenient for those who used it to profit, is near the lowest depths to which human kind can sink.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2010 20:06:08 GMT -5
a lie that's used as an overblown excuse to take us into war is extremely immoral. FDR lied to get us into WW2 and LBJ lied to get us into Vietnam. Sometimes it has to be done. I can't help but empathize with the families of the kids who died as a result They're not kids. They're grown men and women who volunteer to risk their lives for their country, not rosy-cheeked, adolescent conscripts. ... not to mention the Iraqis who were blown away in the glitzy horror of shock and awe. That's the small price they've had to pay for not getting rid of Saddam themselves. a war concocted from false information, not necessary but convenient for those who used it to profit, is near the lowest depths to which human kind can sink. If an American president wants war badly enough, he'll get us into one. That was true for George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt -- you name it. Congress ceded its authority to declare war to the executive branch a long time ago.
|
|