|
Post by bernard on Jan 3, 2015 20:35:21 GMT -6
No twisted again, it is BS to kill the innocent, like murderer's do. No, it does not blow self rightousness at all. Murderer's use heinous ways of torturing & kliling too, just like abortion does, rips them apart. Minus the point you gave yourself "Abortion & the death penalty go hand in hand though some want to deny it. " Seems that means that if you're in favor of one, you should be in favor of the other. No? Are you going to answer this?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 3, 2015 21:16:34 GMT -6
"Abortion & the death penalty go hand in hand though some want to deny it. " Seems that means that if you're in favor of one, you should be in favor of the other. No? Are you going to answer this? Oh sorry, after three days of cold( cold for here at least) downpours, wind, 100 % humidity. Had a break today with sun busy running around again. Sure, murderers in heinous ways, kill innocents even kill babies. Abortion too.. kill's in heinous ways, innocent babies. With execution we end life for justifiable reasons. Not on demand or for non sense reasons.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 4, 2015 15:17:22 GMT -6
No do not spin what I feel, I do not like seeing suffering. No one is making the POS suffer only he did that to himself, Just saying. When I suggested that he suffer for his crimes, you said you didn't want that. Why not? Let's hang, draw and quarter the POS. He brought it on himself, after all. This was a question by the way. It's rude to just ignore it.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 4, 2015 16:32:03 GMT -6
Just saying. When I suggested that he suffer for his crimes, you said you didn't want that. Why not? Let's hang, draw and quarter the POS. He brought it on himself, after all. This was a question by the way. It's rude to just ignore it. No one should suffer that long. I'm rude? YOU telling a member to leave. Maybe you need to go over your own postings, recent & past. As you already know under " both" your names used here ( maybe more than ). Yeah, I just read your excuses for that too in another recent post of yours.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 4, 2015 16:39:16 GMT -6
This was a question by the way. It's rude to just ignore it. No one should suffer that long. I'm rude? Maybe you need to go over your own postings, recent & past. What do you mean? I complimented you on your English. Those weren't my excuses. My excuses for using secret identities are themselves secret. Anyway, answer the question.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 4, 2015 16:46:14 GMT -6
Just saying. When I suggested that he suffer for his crimes, you said you didn't want that. Why not? Let's hang, draw and quarter the POS. He brought it on himself, after all. This was a question by the way. It's rude to just ignore it. Oh, because they do not have time to waste over (one persons) demands to keep replying? Also, do you have a time period for us to go by on long it may take to reply before being found rude? If so, please let us know the time spand before we are told we are ( which is now your forum). We did not even know that. I see you told a member to leave, if she lurks or comes back will she be banned?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 4, 2015 17:13:14 GMT -6
This was a question by the way. It's rude to just ignore it. Oh, because they do not have time to waste over (one persons) demands to keep replying? Also, do you have a time period for us to go by on how long it may take me or anyone of us to reply before being found rude? If so, please let us know the time spand before we are told we are ( which is now your forum). We did not even know that. I see you told a member to leave, if she lurks or comes back will she be banned? LOL, That is amusing an Anti on a Pro Death Penalty site, telling a MVS to leave. A site not owned or run by this Anti with two screen names here. Which the two names here are to protect his privacy & cover his secrets, as he himself stated right here . Which this part is found on the thread Goodbye DP punishment thread today. Now that's one for the books & recent no search thru the archives to find that.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jan 4, 2015 20:30:44 GMT -6
This was a question by the way. It's rude to just ignore it. OK, fair enough. If it's "rude," let me ask-weren't you previously on this board as Matthew5v38, and were in fact banned under that screen name? Second question: Are you aware that registering under a different name after being banned is against the rules of the board?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 5, 2015 1:11:37 GMT -6
Oh, because they do not have time to waste over (one persons) demands to keep replying? Also, do you have a time period for us to go by on how long it may take me or anyone of us to reply before being found rude? If so, please let us know the time spand before we are told we are ( which is now your forum). We did not even know that. I see you told a member to leave, if she lurks or comes back will she be banned? LOL, That is amusing an Anti on a Pro Death Penalty site, telling a MVS to leave. I suggested to Sharon that if she was too busy to make a proper contribution to the board, she should leave. I don't see what's wrong with that. It was just a friendly time management tip. Do you mean to tell me it says "whitediamonds" on your birth certificate? If that's your best example of anti misbehavior then you've made my point for me.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 5, 2015 1:12:17 GMT -6
This was a question by the way. It's rude to just ignore it. OK, fair enough. If it's "rude," let me ask-weren't you previously on this board as Matthew5v38, and were in fact banned under that screen name? Second question: Are you aware that registering under a different name after being banned is against the rules of the board? This is off topic. Ask questions like this in "about this board" or "who are we?".
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 5, 2015 1:23:42 GMT -6
So, speaking of off topic let's get back to the question I asked whitediamonds...
"When I suggested that he suffer for his crimes, you said you didn't want that. Why not? Let's hang, draw and quarter the POS. He brought it on himself, after all."
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jan 5, 2015 13:42:17 GMT -6
That assertion does not establish the presence of cruelty, therefore the execution was constitutional. It doesn't establish things either way, so the question of constitutionality remains open. so therefore it's good 'till it's not.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 5, 2015 14:17:02 GMT -6
It doesn't establish things either way, so the question of constitutionality remains open. so therefore it's good 'till it's not. Or the other way around. Who's to say?
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jan 5, 2015 17:21:47 GMT -6
so therefore it's good 'till it's not. Or the other way around. Who's to say? who do you think is "to say"? you mentioned the constitutionality of DP. only one group can make that final assessment. so until that one group addresses it your way, then my way it remains. which is "good 'till it's not". can't get much more simple than that.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 6, 2015 16:19:37 GMT -6
Or the other way around. Who's to say? who do you think is "to say"? you mentioned the constitutionality of DP. only one group can make that final assessment. so until that one group addresses it your way, then my way it remains. which is "good 'till it's not". can't get much more simple than that. If the SCOTUS rules that the AZ protocol is constitutional, they will rule that it always has been constitutional. If they rule that it is not, they will rule that it has never been. The one thing they WON'T rule is that it was constitutional until it wasn't.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jan 6, 2015 20:29:39 GMT -6
who do you think is "to say"? you mentioned the constitutionality of DP. only one group can make that final assessment. so until that one group addresses it your way, then my way it remains. which is "good 'till it's not". can't get much more simple than that. If the SCOTUS rules that the AZ protocol is constitutional, they will rule that it always has been constitutional. If they rule that it is not, they will rule that it has never been. The one thing they WON'T rule is that it was constitutional until it wasn't. If they rule that it is unconstitutional, it will because they wish to impose their will on the people and they feel that they can get away with it. Several of them will vote against the death penalty no matter what the facts are.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 6, 2015 20:43:11 GMT -6
If the SCOTUS rules that the AZ protocol is constitutional, they will rule that it always has been constitutional. If they rule that it is not, they will rule that it has never been. The one thing they WON'T rule is that it was constitutional until it wasn't. If they rule that it is unconstitutional, it will because they wish to impose their will on the people and they feel that they can get away with it. Several of them will vote against the death penalty no matter what the facts are. If they rule that it is constitutional, it will because they wish to ignore the constitution and impose their will and they feel that they can get away with it. Several of them will vote for the death penalty no matter what the facts are.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jan 6, 2015 20:44:47 GMT -6
If they rule that it is constitutional, it will because they wish to ignore the constitution and impose their will and they feel that they can get away with it. Several of them will vote for the death penalty no matter what the facts are. You can only say that because you wish to ignore the history and intent of the Eighth Amendment.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 6, 2015 20:48:42 GMT -6
If they rule that it is constitutional, it will because they wish to ignore the constitution and impose their will and they feel that they can get away with it. Several of them will vote for the death penalty no matter what the facts are. You can only say that because you wish to ignore the history and intent of the Eighth Amendment. No. The eighth is quite clear. No cruel and unusual punishments. Sedating a person to the point that they go into adrenaline shock and start to wake gasping and gulping, then doing it again, and again, and again, 15 times, is both cruel AND unusual. It's the 21st century equivalent of the ducking stool. Do I expect the SCOTUS to recognize this? Perhaps not. But it's like you said. Some of them vote with their political opinions no matter the facts.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 7, 2015 0:20:41 GMT -6
I think this is on the wrong thread.
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Jan 7, 2015 0:45:05 GMT -6
You are correct, moved to the correct thread.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 7, 2015 0:58:41 GMT -6
deleted
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jan 7, 2015 9:46:54 GMT -6
who do you think is "to say"? you mentioned the constitutionality of DP. only one group can make that final assessment. so until that one group addresses it your way, then my way it remains. which is "good 'till it's not". can't get much more simple than that. If the SCOTUS rules that the AZ protocol is constitutional, they will rule that it always has been constitutional. If they rule that it is not, they will rule that it has never been. The one thing they WON'T rule is that it was constitutional until it wasn't. not much for a little, simple sarcasm are you?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 7, 2015 10:16:35 GMT -6
If the SCOTUS rules that the AZ protocol is constitutional, they will rule that it always has been constitutional. If they rule that it is not, they will rule that it has never been. The one thing they WON'T rule is that it was constitutional until it wasn't. not much for a little, simple sarcasm are you? No, I'm not very bright I'm afraid. But if you were being sarcastic when you said that the AZ protocol was constitutional, and didn't really mean it, then we have nothing to disagree about. Which is nice.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jan 8, 2015 9:34:44 GMT -6
not much for a little, simple sarcasm are you? when you said that the AZ protocol was constitutional, unless I posted under the wrong comment, which wouldn't be the first time, I didn't say anything about the AZ protocol. the comment was simply the DEATH PENALTY is good 'till it's not. ( as in, ruled otherwise) and then back again. and possibly back again, and so forth.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 8, 2015 12:28:36 GMT -6
when you said that the AZ protocol was constitutional, unless I posted under the wrong comment, which wouldn't be the first time, I didn't say anything about the AZ protocol. the comment was simply the DEATH PENALTY is good 'till it's not. ( as in, ruled otherwise) and then back again. and possibly back again, and so forth. Sorry. I misunderstood. We were talking about the AZ protocol specifically. I wasn't commenting on the DP in general.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jan 8, 2015 17:21:45 GMT -6
unless I posted under the wrong comment, which wouldn't be the first time, I didn't say anything about the AZ protocol. the comment was simply the DEATH PENALTY is good 'till it's not. ( as in, ruled otherwise) and then back again. and possibly back again, and so forth. Sorry. I misunderstood. We were talking about the AZ protocol specifically. I wasn't commenting on the DP in general. and quite often I find myself jumping into a "post" rather than the "discussion." ooops, carry on
|
|