|
Post by RickZ on Apr 11, 2008 5:43:21 GMT -6
I have never hidden the fact that I am against the DP. Unlike your heroes such as Che Guerva and Mumia who have a quarrel with this punishment only when the barrell of the gun is facing them. Che was murdered by the USA as far as I was concerned Che the commie murderer, responsible for the deaths of over 10,000 people, was 'murdered' by the US? Then that's just another one of our good points, even though your post is pure fantasy.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Jun 1, 2007 6:59:52 GMT -6
Ok, so I'm in high school right now and am writing my argumentative paper about the death penalty. (pro) I'm using this site as a source, but my teacher wants me to include a statement as to why this site is credible...... Just curious: Is your teacher making that statement a requirement for just you (or this site), or is the teacher making everyone state why a site, or book, cited in their papers is credible?
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Mar 31, 2007 11:15:02 GMT -6
1) Justice.
2) N/A
3) No.
4) No.
5) To a degree.
6) Serial rape, serial child molestation.
7) Yes. To willfully murder is to give up one's right to breathe.
8) No, but I'm not there, either.
9) Irrelevent. Being for or against the death penalty has nothing to do with politics, as shown by the posters on this board. Being for or against the DP is an issue that crosses political lines.
|
|
|
Gardner
Jan 26, 2007 10:21:04 GMT -6
Post by RickZ on Jan 26, 2007 10:21:04 GMT -6
Best of luck in the future. Be well.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Jan 17, 2007 6:28:55 GMT -6
Dangnabbit, what Kay said, Grant.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Jan 10, 2007 13:29:23 GMT -6
I figured this out pretty early, when I realized the massive egos at work among the vast majority of my profs. I mean, Jeez, they made us buy all the books they had written for a particular class, then never tested us on any of the material. Just wanted us to buy their textbooks. Or their buddies'. Income supplement for the tenured. Used textbooks are so . . . capitalistic. Just the thought probably had these morons quaking in their socialist Ivory Towers. Up to a point. After that point, one is obligated, as the consumer, to report abuse to the proper authorities first. If nothing is done, then other options must be explored. What passes for intellectual vigor coupled with research these days is scary. Ward 'Chief Sh*tting Bull' Churchill somes immeditaely to mind. As does Nicholas De Genova (he of the 'million Mogadishus' comment, where he wish 18 million deaths on the US in Iraq (18 Americans lost in 1993 times a million). But I agree, academia is a great racket, mafiosa style.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Jan 9, 2007 6:12:30 GMT -6
For example, in the issue of deterrence I quoted Sharp saying that there is no way to determine the number of murders that did not occur because of fear of execution. His response was "knowledge is not obtained by looking at what cannot be measured... I can't prove it, it doesn't exist." - which is clearly not the case! Well, I'd take the opposite tack. I'd list the number of murders that have occurred by a convicted murderer (in jail or out on the streets) when that convicted criminal is not executed. Start with Kenneth McDuff. Clearly, these murders were/are preventable by the use of the death penalty, and it's a nonemotional argument.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Sept 24, 2006 18:15:27 GMT -6
Well, Jack Henry Abbott wasn't scheduled for execution in NY for murder, but he was paroled from prison, only to murder again.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on May 24, 2006 6:46:57 GMT -6
In my death penalty class at portland state university, a very liberal school, An understatement! Bring it up to school administrators, not that anything is likely to change in the classroom. But one must speak out against one-sided teachers. Yes there is. The person's a teacher, and supposed to be teaching all sides of an argument. What about the human rights, much less the civil rights, of murder victims? For some it might be. So justice is an invalid concept? How about the danger to the rest of society these murderers represent? How can a murder victim be for or against the death penalty? They are dead. That is an anti-dp site which seeks the abolition of the death penalty. Try a little more research.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Mar 28, 2006 5:50:30 GMT -6
Does Amreica have an independant body who investigate police? Considering that we do not have one police, but layers of police with differing responsibilities and jurisdictions, no, although most local/state police have some type of Civilian Complaint Review Board (which is the name used in NYC) to investigate citizens' claims of police abuse. If the local complaints are sufficiently egregious or form a pattern of corruption, the Feds may step in to investigate and monitor a police department/organization, or there may be public commissions/investigative bodies set up by elected officals, too, like with the Knapp Commission back in the early 1970's here in NYC.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Mar 14, 2006 15:12:27 GMT -6
Now I'm going to tell you all something. Be faithful about getting your checkups. Um, what's a check-up? You mean that seeing a doctor when you feel bad isn't enough? There's more to do? Dang, I've got to figure out this check-up thingy.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Oct 19, 2006 20:34:07 GMT -6
I'll give you one more, and one I've mentioned around these parts before.
Cost. LWOP will increase exponentially in cost as the prison population ages. Why should my taxes pay for their upkeep? Not to mention the cost of the high security Super Max prisons. Stick 'em on the row, give 'em their appeals, then give 'em the juice.
I'll throw out another benefit. What message is society sending to potential murderers if we allow murderers to continue to live, to only receive LWOP? Are we not, in effect, giving them a mulligan for the murders they commit? They've broken the social contract, and that's enough of a reason to execute 'em.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Oct 19, 2006 16:02:32 GMT -6
I have to go on a debate and if you guys could just help me out, what are some questions I could ask the opposing side? I need atleast five more, I already got five. I cant think of anymore. Why don't you tell us what you've come up with so far?
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Feb 28, 2006 20:31:52 GMT -6
I see you don't want to understand. You really need some professional help Joe. Or maybe you need another wife. You need a wife who gives you more satisfaction in every way. You seem to be very frustrated. You have to push up your self-esteem judging unknown people. Or maybe you need more action in your life. You miss anything. I don't know what. You need peace. Try yoga! (Re)read pk's post (3 above the one I quoted) to see why your opinion of Joseph DOES NOT matter.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Feb 25, 2006 6:52:02 GMT -6
His DNA test came back. The only thing it proved was that I was such a fool. I not only found out he was guilty but I paid $3500 of my own money. Did you turn the DNA results over to the prosecuting authorities to prevent later spurious claims of "innocence"? Sounds like you're still confused. He's guilty and will, hopefully, get the justice that he is deservedly due. Do you have a problem wth justice?
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Jan 9, 2006 10:09:53 GMT -6
Wikipedia is a joke, and should never be used as a reference for anything.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Nov 5, 2005 18:34:09 GMT -6
Hello. My name is Laura, I'm 17 years old, and a student on a Belgian Highschool. I was given an assignment to do about ethics. I chose "Death Penalty" out of free will, because it's a subject with many sides. I haven't really decided yet, if I'm pro or contra death penalty. The question you have to answer is what would you want to happen to the murderers of your parents, or a favorite aunt or uncle, or a sibling. Would 10 years in jail suffice for you? Would 25 years? Those are the questons you must answer before you make a decision on this topic.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Aug 3, 2005 8:59:20 GMT -6
Would you like some more immigrants? We have plenty to send over. Absolutely. It would jump start the ChinoLatino and cuchifrito businesses over there. Help expand their exotic dining experience beyond their 'kabob cart' horizons, too.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Oct 26, 2005 8:58:22 GMT -6
I am not for the death penalty either, but at least I have reasons why. 1) It's murder anyway you look at it An exeuction is certainly a homicide, but it most defintely is not murder. Follow your own advice, kiddo.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Aug 5, 2005 9:56:20 GMT -6
I would expect that teachers and parents are supervising the project. I also expect that they can help evaluate the quality of the various posts and the thinking demonstrated in them. You expect too much.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on May 2, 2005 8:32:42 GMT -6
"All of us are sentenced to die, murderers require a quicker exit" Sorry, I would have given the board member credit but i cant remembe rwho you are That's me!
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Sept 1, 2005 9:01:57 GMT -6
RickZ, how do I glorify murderers? You're accusing me of lying about something I don't do. glo·ri·fy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (glôr-f, glr-) tr.v. glo·ri·fied, glo·ri·fy·ing, glo·ri·fies To give glory to, especially through worship. Murderers need to be punished with Life Without the Possibility of Parole. Now how do I glorify murderers? Just what do you think death row inmate websites, being a scum-pal, and giving "honest" talks are, fool?
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Sept 1, 2005 8:44:11 GMT -6
I don't glorify murderers. You lie. You don't lie. You do not know what the definition of "is" is. You think mutt's a slam? Boy, are you ever naive. True. Too bad their victims can't "be reading that."
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Sept 1, 2005 7:43:13 GMT -6
I have to admit I have a hard time when it comes to child rapists, murderers. I think about my own kids, what I would do. I'd kill 'em myself. However, hopefully, I'd get the help I need to allow me to go on and I'd continue to fight the death penalty. I wouldn't have anything to do with any murder of my child for sure. Every murderer murders someone's child, you sanctimonious POS.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Feb 22, 2008 5:03:22 GMT -6
The tragedy of Canada is that they could have had British culture, French cuisine, and American technology, but instead got American culture, British cooking, and French technology. THAT is freakin' BRILLIANT!! HOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAA. I agree. When I read that comment, I couldn't stop laughing. The things one can read on the innernut.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Feb 22, 2008 5:01:50 GMT -6
Rickz thats hardcore. im british and i love Canada, ok, and your place as well. but what is wrong with british cooking. you are so yesterday with that comment. We have more michellin restaurants outside of france then anywhere else. we are now known for our excellent cooking and may i add i am a chef and i can knock the spots off most so called professionals. come to the little motherland and you will see our culture (whats left of it) and taste our variance county cooking. its the dogs bollocks and, im proud to say im British, yes a redcoat, a limmy, a pomme, a whitey, a Brit whatever you mixed up wired and crazy but fabulous people want to call us. Come to the motherland and see for your self what a fabulous little dump we live in, it rains a lot and its windy and damp at the moment but we will make you very welcome. I gather you're suffering heat stroke from being in the kitchen too long, lawrence. The comment I quoted pokes fun at Canadiens at the expense of various not highly acclaimed aspects of those other three countries which make up the heritage of the True North Strong and Free (as if anything can be north of them in the first place, but I digress). Let's face it, American culture is pretty vapid, but it sells. And no need to go into French technology; the propeller on France's brand spankin' new aircraft carrier, the Charles deGaulle, fell off leaving port. And British cuisine may be improving, but there was only one way for it to go, no? For a long while there, British cuisine was one step up from early homo sapiens sapiens cuisine: The British put pots of water on top of fire to cook their meat. Besides, importing chefs from the Continent really doesn't count as improving British cuisine. It's more a case of, "D*mn, there's good and tasty food in other parts of the world! Let's bring their chefs here!" Here I do have thoughts like yours. Any people who use perfume as a deoderant certainly leaves a lot to be desired; it really could be considered a crime against humanity's nostrils. Not to mention French women with their hairy armpits and legs. Yuck! If I wanted to be with a guy, well, . . .
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Feb 16, 2008 2:56:52 GMT -6
Canada is the North American branch of the EU. It too is a nation run by a far-left elite. Only when the Canadian people have patriotic leaders will they be able to stay safe. A funny (anonymous) comment I read somewhere on the net (with apologies to Doc): The tragedy of Canada is that they could have had British culture, French cuisine, and American technology, but instead got American culture, British cooking, and French technology.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Jan 14, 2008 14:14:10 GMT -6
My point was my friend, someone is always sensitive to something, you may remember my ban last year or the year before from the board for a month for my joke when you said the Muslim world was on fire, and I quipped that the only thing I could see on fire was the twin towers in your then avatar. A bit insensitive yes, struck a raw nerve? Yes, Inappropriate? Yes, but in a warped kind of way very funny depending on your perspecive. My question is where do you draw the line in humour? How do you legislate. The big difference, and it's a mighty big difference, is that you answered to a private web site, and not to some governmental 'banality of evil' bureaucrat. Should government be in such a business? I think not. This Levant-Ol' Moe Khartoon case speaks volumes concerning the incremental loss of Freedoms. If one doesn't stand up. Just like Mr. Levant is doing. For us all, whether we are Canadian or not. And no, government should not be in the business of legislating humor. To each his own. Ignore what you don't like. Be offended if you like. But the government has no place in the equation.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Jan 14, 2008 6:42:26 GMT -6
It does seem crazy, I agree. But to be even and fair, are'nt there things we all stop short of making fun of Rick? What you are saying is that you are in favor of those who are easily offended and want legal protection. You want morality police, the mutawa. I find that interesting. In a democratic society, somebody will always be offended by something somewhere. Whether it be those, religous and otherwise, who advocate against porn, seeking tougher and tougher laws. Yet porn is one of the largest industries in California, creating huge revenue for the State. Or take the City of Amsterdam. I'm sure there's somebody over there who is offended by the store-front red light district. Yet it is that very thing which helps bring tourists to Holland, benefitting the government. Or lottery. I'm sure there's a ton of people who do not take kindly to State gambling, yet the State does it anyway, raking in lots of money that never really has a true accounting done, like all the monies that were supposd to go to schools. If people are playing the Lottery in high numbers for years, and our schools are failing, why is this? I'm offended, but that sure as h*ll won't stop NY from creating ever more Instant Lottery games at 5, 10, even 20 bucks a card. I can't believe you want to live under some sort of religious autocracy, where an elected government is ever subservient to religious dogma, and uses the authority of the state to push such dogma spouted by religious leaders never elected to anything, no matter how outdated or mysoginistic or tribal or irrelevent to your own life that dogma is. You give up so easily that which has been been hard fought and hard won: The Freedom for a woman to wear a short skirt ending at very long legs. Now that is patently offensive to the religious sensibilities of some here on this planet, and I'm sure you agree with them and want to see such ridiculous and frivolous Western 'values' come to a quick and sharp end. For the good of those easily offended of course. We wouldn't want to cause offense, now would we? Oh, and Ezra Levant's blog. A very brave man, standing up to the steamroller power of the State to create Thought Crime Police and Though Crime penalties. Because someone, somewhere, is offended by Ol' Moe khartoons. An old dead Arab guy who, by virtue of being dead, can no longer take offense in any case. Sort of like the statue of a crucifix (which is not just a cross, but has the body of Christ 'nailed' to it) standing upright in a beaker of urine. Or a painting of the Blessed Mother with elephant dung strewn all over it. Yep. Bring on the mutawa. We mustn't have everything be fair game, but make exceptions for blasphemy laws contained in one particular belief system. Well, at least the textile industry will gain what with longer and longer skirts, head coverings, etc. ezralevant.com/
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Jan 13, 2008 6:13:43 GMT -6
You just can't make this stuff up! A Saudi-trained imam living in Canada complained to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, or some such Orwellian title, about a Canadian magazine in Alberta publishing the Ol' Moe khartoons. The publisher now has to explain his actions to this governmental drum-head tribunal as if someone being offended is a crime. Dhimmitude by any other name. Bravo, Mr. Levant. [And do check out the inquisitor's posture as Mr. Levant takes her to the politically incorrect woodshed: "They say that I've offended the Prophet Mohammed, who's dead, by the way, so I don't think I've offended him. . . ."]
Parts I-III (yes, Matt, Latin, the language of mathematical oppression)
tinyurl.com/38635aPart IV tinyurl.com/2rpxpk
|
|