Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2011 3:52:59 GMT -6
Why are 100 % of those in favor of the DP also in favor of executing innocent people?
|
|
|
Post by jan on Jan 26, 2011 4:48:18 GMT -6
Why are 100 % of those in favor of the DP also in favor of executing innocent people? And who are the innocent you are talking about?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2011 12:08:31 GMT -6
Why are 100 % of those in favor of the DP also in favor of executing innocent people? And who are the innocent you are talking about? Here's some reading to get you started...tip of the iceberg... www.justicedenied.org/executed.htm
|
|
|
Post by HANGMAN1981 on Jan 26, 2011 12:16:43 GMT -6
Why are 100 % of those in favor of the DP also in favor of executing innocent people? Proponents of the death penalty are NOT in favor of executing the innocent. We support the punishment for what it is-the ultimate punishment for the worst crimes. If you are worried about innocent people being executed, do not convict innocent people.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Jan 26, 2011 12:33:52 GMT -6
Personally, I would rather be executed for a crime I did not do than be locked in prison for the rest of my life. In fact, if I were ever sent to prison for a long time, I'd probably hang myself with my bedsheets. I see no point in living that way.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jan 26, 2011 12:43:25 GMT -6
Why are 100 % of those in favor of the DP also in favor of executing innocent people? Proponents of the death penalty are NOT in favor of executing the innocent. We support the punishment for what it is-the ultimate punishment for the worst crimes. If you are worried about innocent people being executed, do not convict innocent people. I remember one thread where people were talking about stoning adulteresses, including a 13 year old girl who was stoned for being raped (since that counts as adultery). Your response, 'Hangman' was: STONE 'EM LOW!!You're a real tough guy I guess, posturing over the stoning of a 13 year old girl for being raped. But in any case you kinda make the original poster's point.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jan 26, 2011 12:44:09 GMT -6
Personally, I would rather be executed for a crime I did not do than be locked in prison for the rest of my life. In fact, if I were ever sent to prison for a long time, I'd probably hang myself with my bedsheets. I see no point in living that way. So you favor giving murderers a more merciful penalty. Why do you love murderers so much?
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Jan 26, 2011 12:51:53 GMT -6
Personally, I would rather be executed for a crime I did not do than be locked in prison for the rest of my life. In fact, if I were ever sent to prison for a long time, I'd probably hang myself with my bedsheets. I see no point in living that way. So you favor giving murderers a more merciful penalty. Why do you love murderers so much? I meant if I were innocent. I have goals and aspirations beyond a prison rec yard. I don't think like a murderer because I am not one. Many murderers thrive in the prison environment. Prison to them is nothing more than a venue where their violent ways can flourish.
|
|
|
Post by HANGMAN1981 on Jan 26, 2011 13:59:03 GMT -6
Proponents of the death penalty are NOT in favor of executing the innocent. We support the punishment for what it is-the ultimate punishment for the worst crimes. If you are worried about innocent people being executed, do not convict innocent people. I remember one thread where people were talking about stoning adulteresses, including a 13 year old girl who was stoned for being raped (since that counts as adultery). Your response, 'Hangman' was: STONE 'EM LOW!!You're a real tough guy I guess, posturing over the stoning of a 13 year old girl for being raped. But in any case you kinda make the original poster's point. It's antagonists like you that waste plenty of space on these threads. The law is the law depending on the country, and your definition of "innocence" is an opinion rather than a fact.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jan 26, 2011 15:29:39 GMT -6
I remember one thread where people were talking about stoning adulteresses, including a 13 year old girl who was stoned for being raped (since that counts as adultery). Your response, 'Hangman' was: STONE 'EM LOW!!You're a real tough guy I guess, posturing over the stoning of a 13 year old girl for being raped. But in any case you kinda make the original poster's point. It's antagonists like you that waste plenty of space on these threads. The law is the law depending on the country, and your definition of "innocence" is an opinion rather than a fact. So whether a raped 13 year old girl is "innocent" is a matter of opinion. What an odious POS you are. But at least you let me prove - again - what kind of mindset pros have.
|
|
|
Post by HANGMAN1981 on Jan 26, 2011 16:05:06 GMT -6
It's antagonists like you that waste plenty of space on these threads. The law is the law depending on the country, and your definition of "innocence" is an opinion rather than a fact. So whether a raped 13 year old girl is "innocent" is a matter of opinion. What an odious POS you are. But at least you let me prove - again - what kind of mindset pros have. That isn't the point. The point is that THEIR LAW states it. You are now comparing THE LAW of another country and how they punish under what aggravating circumstances. Try and interfere with those people, and they will [glow=red,2,300]STONE YOU LOW![/glow]
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jan 26, 2011 18:43:29 GMT -6
So whether a raped 13 year old girl is "innocent" is a matter of opinion. What an odious POS you are. But at least you let me prove - again - what kind of mindset pros have. That isn't the point. The point is that THEIR LAW states it. You are now comparing THE LAW of another country and how they punish under what aggravating circumstances. Try and interfere with those people, and they will [glow=red,2,300]STONE YOU LOW![/glow]
Whether or not I can change it, I ain't writing [glow=red,2,300]STONE 'EM LOW![/glow]
as if knowledge of a 13 year old girl being tortured to death for being raped got me off. Act like a man ffs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2011 4:59:21 GMT -6
One of the good aspects of antiness is that you get to have an opinion on the laws of any country or culture. You can't believe that state execution is wrong morally without extending that to any nation and circumstance. Therefore, whether or not you are a citizen of the state that says it's ok to throw rocks at a juvenile rape victim until they perish, you still get to say it's wrong. There are no caveats to being anti.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jan 27, 2011 15:24:46 GMT -6
Why are 100 % of those in favor of the DP also in favor of executing innocent people? be careful with plagarism here. honky has the license for "stupid beyond all comprehension" statements/questions?
|
|
|
Post by arizonavet on Jan 27, 2011 15:44:01 GMT -6
Stoning for adultry... Executing 13 year olds.. Not here...not ever... However the countries that DO do this crap seem to be the "protected ones" of the anti's. Very few anti's see any value whatever in replacing fundamentalist Moslem governments that support terrorism, mutilate and stone women, force them to wear demeaning bed sheets over their heads....NEVER let them vote... But if we execute the worst of the worst murderers in America...well read these posts...we're blood thirsty beasts. Innocent....give me a break!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2011 16:16:55 GMT -6
However the countries that DO do this crap seem to be the "protected ones" of the anti's. Very few anti's see any value whatever in replacing fundamentalist Moslem governments that support terrorism, mutilate and stone women, force them to wear demeaning bed sheets over their heads....NEVER let them vote... But if we execute the worst of the worst murderers in America...well read these posts...we're blood thirsty beasts. Innocent....give me a break! You raise a very good point here. I'm not saying Honky does this, on the contrary, he seems as disgusted in people being killed for this things as most of us are (although apparently not all ) But I have noticed that quite a few anti's on one hand will point out these atrocious killings, like a 13 year old being stoned to death for being a rape victim, and yet be the first ones in line to argue and fight for these governments and complain about anyone else meddling (although some pros seem to be doing this as well). The girl who was executed for being a rape victim is in a country where women are not much higher on the totem poles than dogs and property. It's despicable and will not change as long as Fundamental Muslim groups hold most of the power. But I would say the biggest fight against executions should be in those countries where people are executed for some of the most retarded things, rather than a place that gives years and years worth of due process where even a small fraction of our worst killers are actually on death row.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jan 27, 2011 16:52:01 GMT -6
Stoning for adultry... Executing 13 year olds.. Not here...not ever... However the countries that DO do this crap seem to be the "protected ones" of the anti's. Very few anti's see any value whatever in replacing fundamentalist Moslem governments that support terrorism, mutilate and stone women, force them to wear demeaning bed sheets over their heads....NEVER let them vote... As usual az you run a tank through a bunch of obvious distinctions. My argument on the other thread is NOT that the islamofascists should be given carte blanche and we should not oppose them. It IS that the president should seek authority for deploying troops in another country from congress, per our constitution.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2011 16:58:47 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jan 27, 2011 17:07:02 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2011 17:26:20 GMT -6
Nah, I think quite frankly, it is appalling that anyone could attempt to justify this one (which always looks like a feeble attempt in my opinion) regardless of their pro or anti stance.
|
|
|
Post by arizonavet on Jan 28, 2011 8:14:28 GMT -6
Stoning for adultry... Executing 13 year olds.. Not here...not ever... However the countries that DO do this crap seem to be the "protected ones" of the anti's. Very few anti's see any value whatever in replacing fundamentalist Moslem governments that support terrorism, mutilate and stone women, force them to wear demeaning bed sheets over their heads....NEVER let them vote... As usual az you run a tank through a bunch of obvious distinctions. My argument on the other thread is NOT that the islamofascists should be given carte blanche and we should not oppose them. It IS that the president should seek authority for deploying troops in another country from congress, per our constitution. The distinction you chose to ignore is that in the war on terror, unlike a war with a clearly defined country like Germany or Japan could never be fought with a convenient declaration of war. When we took over Afghanistan & Iraq, the president DID "seek authority"... When we deploy troops for the vast majority of terrorism....it just isn't practical. Honky, what did you think about Clinton attacking in Serbia? If ever there was a worthless, counter productive to American interests war....that was it.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jan 28, 2011 11:35:42 GMT -6
The distinction you chose to ignore is that in the war on terror, unlike a war with a clearly defined country like Germany or Japan could never be fought with a convenient declaration of war. It must still, however, require the approval of congress to maintain the deployment of US forces overseas. There is nothing magical about the war on terror that negates this basic principle. 'took over'. Heh. The President's authority extends to doing what is necessary to deal with the threat of Saddam Hussein. That mandate has expired. I don't know how to make it any simpler to you. It seems you've run out of points and you're just running on stubborn. Setting aside whether it was counterproductive to American interests, the action should have received proper congressional approval. The US executive becomes, with each passing incumbent, more of a runaway elephant.
|
|
|
Post by arizonavet on Jan 28, 2011 11:44:31 GMT -6
The distinction you chose to ignore is that in the war on terror, unlike a war with a clearly defined country like Germany or Japan could never be fought with a convenient declaration of war. It must still, however, require the approval of congress to maintain the deployment of US forces overseas. There is nothing magical about the war on terror that negates this basic principle. 'took over'. Heh. The President's authority extends to doing what is necessary to deal with the threat of Saddam Hussein. That mandate has expired. I don't know how to make it any simpler to you. It seems you've run out of points and you're just running on stubborn. Setting aside whether it was counterproductive to American interests, the action should have received proper congressional approval. The US executive becomes, with each passing incumbent, more of a runaway elephant. HB...you argue or debate more out of anti-American, political ideology as much as any poster here..... You admit to no "points"....ever! A person like yourself see's all other view points as simple "stubbornness".... Why, if they weren't "stubborn" they would have agreed with you long ago
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jan 28, 2011 11:53:15 GMT -6
It must still, however, require the approval of congress to maintain the deployment of US forces overseas. There is nothing magical about the war on terror that negates this basic principle. 'took over'. Heh. The President's authority extends to doing what is necessary to deal with the threat of Saddam Hussein. That mandate has expired. I don't know how to make it any simpler to you. It seems you've run out of points and you're just running on stubborn. Setting aside whether it was counterproductive to American interests, the action should have received proper congressional approval. The US executive becomes, with each passing incumbent, more of a runaway elephant. HB...you argue or debate more out of anti-American, political ideology as much as any poster here..... You admit to no "points"....ever! Arguing that the constitution ought to be respected is 'anti-American'. Heh. That's a new one. The constitution gives congress the power to determine whether we engage in ongoing military actions, not the executive. You haven't argued that the constitution says otherwise, and you haven't argued that we should ignore the constitution. Until you do you got nothing but warm breath.
|
|
|
Post by arizonavet on Jan 28, 2011 12:23:46 GMT -6
HB...you argue or debate more out of anti-American, political ideology as much as any poster here..... You admit to no "points"....ever! Arguing that the constitution ought to be respected is 'anti-American'. Heh. That's a new one. The constitution gives congress the power to determine whether we engage in ongoing military actions, not the executive. You haven't argued that the constitution says otherwise, and you haven't argued that we should ignore the constitution. Until you do you got nothing but warm breath. HB...your anti-American business, anti-American military, is obvious & flagrant...it has nothing to do with our constitution.... You only use the constitution to bash our government. To tell the truth, you speak like a socialist European... Not an honorable one like Brumsongs...a bitter one. Without the anti-terrorist efforts of our military & national security organizations, like the FBI & CIA....we'd be knee deep in our own citizens blood. Personally, I don't give a rats patootie how the job gets done. I honestly don't believe you WANT to see it done at all.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jan 28, 2011 20:37:06 GMT -6
Arguing that the constitution ought to be respected is 'anti-American'. Heh. That's a new one. The constitution gives congress the power to determine whether we engage in ongoing military actions, not the executive. You haven't argued that the constitution says otherwise, and you haven't argued that we should ignore the constitution. Until you do you got nothing but warm breath. HB...your anti-American business, anti-American military, is obvious & flagrant...it has nothing to do with our constitution.... You only use the constitution to bash our government. To tell the truth, you speak like a socialist European... Not an honorable one like Brumsongs...a bitter one. Without the anti-terrorist efforts of our military & national security organizations, like the FBI & CIA....we'd be knee deep in our own citizens blood. Personally, I don't give a rats patootie how the job gets done. I honestly don't believe you WANT to see it done at all. I get it. You're a totalitarian. You wish America was the USSR, or Nazi Germany, where the government gets to kill and torture in secret and no-one had better complain. My country beats up on morons like you periodically, so don't think I am unfamiliar.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jan 28, 2011 20:55:55 GMT -6
Why are 100 % of those in favor of the DP also in favor of executing innocent people? That is a dishonest question.
|
|
|
Post by HANGMAN1981 on Jan 29, 2011 17:31:11 GMT -6
It's interesting that you waste your time searching through past forums to find such a quote. How long ago was it anyway? Six months?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2011 17:45:04 GMT -6
That is a dishonest question. I agree, it is a straw man argument at best.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jan 29, 2011 17:53:49 GMT -6
That is a dishonest question. I agree, it is a straw man argument at best. No it isn't. 100% of pros are willing to risk the execution of innocents. It is by definition of their position.
|
|