|
Post by Stormyweather on Mar 1, 2009 20:22:35 GMT -6
Are you still upset that Texas Governor Rick Perry allowed Jose Medellin to be executed? Was Dwight Eisenhower an egghead when he defeated the Nazis in World War II? Are the things that bother you most about Tim Kaine is he allowed the executions of murderers Dexter Lee Vinson, Brandon Hedrick, Michael Lenz, John Schmitt, Rob Yarbrough, Kevin Green, Chris Emmet, Kent Jackson, and Edward Bell to go forward? Kaine is a god damned hypocrite. He's not an anti... Perry spit in the face of International law. Wouldn't it be lovely if his kid gets arrested overseas and he's denied the right to contact an American consulate? You know Charlene responded to this, but just incase you didn't see it I'll put it here for you to read. That way you'll know Medellin was given the rights he was entitled to have. Well when a US citizen is ever arrested abroad (doesn't have to be for murder) and he/she's denied access to a US consul, see how you'll be pissing and moaning... And rightfully so, I would. Medellin was not denied access. I know it, he knew it, the police in Houston knew it, his lawyer's knew it, the Mexican government knew it, President Bush knew it...everyone but anti-dp people, it seems. prodp.proboards47.com/index.cgi?board=dpnews&action=display&thread=25038Go read post #11
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Mar 1, 2009 20:40:13 GMT -6
Kaine is a god damned hypocrite. He's not an anti... No, he's an old-fashioned Democrat, from back in the days when they believed in stern punishment of criminals, too. I think all of our citizens should obey all laws when abroad. When they get in trouble, as far as I'm concerned, they asked for it. As to a visit by a consular officer, big deal. They can't do much except recommend you hire a lawyer. What American doesn't know that?
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Mar 1, 2009 20:42:25 GMT -6
As to a visit by a consular officer, big deal. They can't do much except recommend you hire a lawyer. What American doesn't know that? Scott maybe?
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Mar 1, 2009 20:43:31 GMT -6
Here in the great ole USA the main cause of crime is racism and poverty. Most criminals simply don't have any other choice but to commit crime to survive. The Republicans... (blah blah blah blah...) Olive Oyl to the rescue of the poor and downtrodden everywhere!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2009 23:08:48 GMT -6
That is the main difference, I don't see it as lowering the value of its citizens but rather saying it is saying that our citizens are our most valuable asset. If a person murders someone then they must pay the ultimate price, they forfeit their own life. I am actually in Canada, and I see news reports of people being released from prison for murder, and then going on to kill again. Canada like Holland has no true LWOP sentence. Some people may never get out alive, but they have the right to petition for their release or parole after a specified amount of time. Recently in a city about 150km a man murdered his girl friend and young child. He had been released from prison the year before. I blame the death of the two innocent people not only on the murderer but on all of society for allowing someone like him to not only be released from jail, but also for being alive. If we had the balls to do what is needed to protect ourselves from the evils of society many people would still be alive. I have to disagree with you on many counts ! Canada: Has a very low repeat murder rate, I believe it is 0.3% and the vast majority of these repeat murderers were convicted for manslaughter (in other words they would be released eventually. I do understand that it open the debate for manslaughter punishment, but that is a different debate). I understand that Canada isn't perfect, but we do do a great job rehabilitating 1st degree and 2nd degree murderers. The recidivism rate for these murderers are extremely low (approx. 0.1%). This is not during a 1 or 2 year study, but the total released during a period from 1975 - 1999 (ie. 24 years). "Conditional Release and Homicide Offences Between 1975 and 1999, there were 11,783 releases of offenders into the community on parole or statutory release who were serving sentences for murder (4,131), or manslaughter (7,752). Of these, 37 (0.3%) were subsequently convicted for further homicide offensives involving the deaths of 58 people in Canada. Thirteen of these repeat homicide offenders had originally been convicted of murder." www.npb-cnlc.gc.ca/rprts/pls_2002-eng.shtmlI understand your stance that 1 repeat murder is too many, but it is not as dark as you first suggested (And no, I wouldn't want one of these murderers as a neighbor). United States: No matter if you support the death penalty or oppose it, I believe you have to agree with the fact that "JUST" being tough on crime does not cut it anymore. In reality, I believe, the people should ask their politicians to stop being tough on crime and actually do something about crime ! It is no secret that being tough on crime is simple rhetoric that allows politicians to do nothing. While I do concur that all crime can not be prevented, I truly believe that a lot can be prevented. I also admit that it is not an easy task, nor a quick task, but (again) I believe, it is a very important task. It shouldn't be a shock that the great ole USA, has a very serious problem with murder that other similar countries do not. Please understand that this is not an attempt to bash the US, but just my opinion that the US can do so much more, yet decides not to. If you believe in the DP, fine support the candidate the will uphold it, as long as he/she will do more than just that. If not this board will continue to have more and more victims of the worst crime. The fact of the matter is that it is an epidemic and money doesn't really matter, if you are not alive to enjoy it. Ron (I know it sounds preachy)
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Mar 2, 2009 3:48:47 GMT -6
Storm, Eisenhower didnt defeat the Nazi all by his lonesome, i think that the Russians might have something to say about that.
Mr Bubble, people who want LWOP want it to mean exactly that, unfortunaetly it doesnt, we are arguing that it should.
Somebody, the figures your presented for the US copmpared to the Uk have to be questionable due to the size of populatio for a start. Also the thinking behind the sentencing acts and punishment when given to the release and allegibiity for parole. We in the Uk are always disgusted with the way criminals are or seem to be treated over the victims of crime. This has a lot to do with the European human rights act that the UK government signed up to without a national referendum. That agreement has done nothing but saucse confusion, give unscrupuless lawyers an open cheque book and criminals the right to shout "its aginst my human rights" everytime they are found guilty.
You will find the reason why the majority of Brits would leave the european union is because what are in at the moment is not what we joined up to originally. Every year we see Europe overturn our laws and our independence to make our own laws. I an honestly say that within ten years the UK will be out of the EU, if not out then certainly self relegated to the fringes. Crime in the country is at an all time high because of the laws and legislation that Europe has forced upon the British through various back doors, agreements and other ways. Its wrong and its not wanted here or liked.
We joined an economic union not a social union. Its dont nothing but improve the lifes of the few and definately the criminal fraternity. We would be out tomorrow if given the vote. The Yanks may have their problems but they dont have the bollocks that we have to put up with, the red tape, the political interference. They deal with it, simple. I wish Europe could do the same.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Mar 2, 2009 6:01:28 GMT -6
We joined an economic union not a social union. That sums it up right there.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Mar 2, 2009 8:38:01 GMT -6
Storm, Eisenhower didnt defeat the Nazi all by his lonesome, i think that the Russians might have something to say about that. Ike was Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force. Any further questions?
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Mar 2, 2009 8:40:15 GMT -6
We joined an economic union not a social union. That sums it up right there. I believe he was in charge, and how the war was basically run was up to him.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Mar 2, 2009 8:45:29 GMT -6
No, although I do agree about the dp as a guarantee, I also think that giving counseling and therapy (as we do in The Netherlands) might help them to change I do not believe that serial offenders, especially murderers, can be rehabilitated. My psychology teacher has a brother who is a criminal. He is in jail because he cannot stop stealing cars. He has been let out twice, and as soon as he was let out, he stole cars. He probably won't get out again until he is old. Is this one of the instances where someone says, "everyone needs a hobby".
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Mar 2, 2009 8:53:38 GMT -6
Storm, Eik had no authority on the Eastern Front whatsoever. Narda, zilch, bugger all. Germany was already militarily buggered by the time we landed in France. Russia was destroying the German Armies with such ease it was embarressing. From the moment Stalingrad was lost they were doomed. Eik was supreme commander in the west. He had no authority on the eastern Front at all. What we did do was help the Russian with our total blanket bombing of the Reich Cities and manufacturing bases. They were doomed the minute Operation Barborrosa commenced. Want a history lesson.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2009 9:01:10 GMT -6
Storm, Eik had no authority on the Eastern Front whatsoever. Narda, zilch, bugger all. Germany was already militarily buggered by the time we landed in France. Russia was destroying the German Armies with such ease it was embarressing. From the moment Stalingrad was lost they were doomed. Eik was supreme commander in the west. He had no authority on the eastern Front at all. What we did do was help the Russian with our total blanket bombing of the Reich Cities and manufacturing bases. They were doomed the minute Operation Barborrosa commenced. So it was the Soviet Union that brought down the Germany empire, and the help that the USA provided had little if nothing to do with any of it? Want a history lesson.
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Mar 2, 2009 9:01:14 GMT -6
Storm , my hobby is military history. Heres a question for you. Did the British Army (The Redcoats) lose more men to typhoid, pox and other nasty stuff i.e sexually transmitted deseases or in action agianst the Colonial Armies? Let me know tomorrow please. Im off home, Little lydia was spraying vomit all night so i have a lot of laundry to do, supper to cook and ironing. Lucky me. She is in a hell of a state. Catch you later. Regarding the question, A little tip for you, it was in action
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Mar 2, 2009 9:05:54 GMT -6
Yes Doc, we helped but by 1944, June especially they were 40 miles from the Polish Border. I didnt say the US and Great Britain hadnt nothing to do with it, of course we did. I stated a fact. Eik had not a sausage of authority in the East. Fact, storm answered her own question really. Eik was in charge of the Allied Expeditionary force. That didnt include the Russians.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Mar 2, 2009 9:06:40 GMT -6
Storm, Eik had no authority on the Eastern Front whatsoever. Narda, zilch, bugger all. Germany was already militarily buggered by the time we landed in France. Russia was destroying the German Armies with such ease it was embarressing. From the moment Stalingrad was lost they were doomed. Eik was supreme commander in the west. He had no authority on the eastern Front at all. What we did do was help the Russian with our total blanket bombing of the Reich Cities and manufacturing bases. They were doomed the minute Operation Barborrosa commenced. Want a history lesson. Tell me, did it help the Soviets any when the the US was fighting them from the otherside?
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Mar 2, 2009 9:07:08 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Mar 2, 2009 9:09:17 GMT -6
Storm , my hobby is military history. Heres a question for you. Did the British Army (The Redcoats) lose more men to typhoid, pox and other nasty stuff i.e sexually transmitted deseases or in action agianst the Colonial Armies? Let me know tomorrow please. Im off home, Little lydia was spraying vomit all night so i have a lot of laundry to do, supper to cook and ironing. Lucky me. She is in a hell of a state. Catch you later. Regarding the question, A little tip for you, it was in action It was "in action" you say, ok stoprmy, I guess the answer is sexually transmitted diseases then? ;D
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Mar 2, 2009 9:09:27 GMT -6
Sorry , Just the US Storm ?. Lets not forget the rest, the Canadians, the SAustralians, the Kiwi's etc etc. Storm the next thing you will be telling me is that you guys won the war all by your self. You can have the last word, im off home. XXX
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Mar 2, 2009 9:10:43 GMT -6
What does that war have to do with fighting the Nazis?
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Mar 2, 2009 9:11:09 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Mar 2, 2009 9:11:59 GMT -6
Storm, Eik had no authority on the Eastern Front whatsoever. Narda, zilch, bugger all. Please explain the tactical advantage of fighting a war on two fronts. (if any) No historian I've ever read described Stalingrad as an "easy" battle for either side. Lawrence, I'm a Masters' in American History. I love ya, man, but frankly your assessment of WWII history sucks.
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Mar 2, 2009 9:12:28 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2009 9:12:28 GMT -6
That is the main difference, I don't see it as lowering the value of its citizens but rather saying it is saying that our citizens are our most valuable asset. If a person murders someone then they must pay the ultimate price, they forfeit their own life. I am actually in Canada, and I see news reports of people being released from prison for murder, and then going on to kill again. Canada like Holland has no true LWOP sentence. Some people may never get out alive, but they have the right to petition for their release or parole after a specified amount of time. Recently in a city about 150km a man murdered his girl friend and young child. He had been released from prison the year before. I blame the death of the two innocent people not only on the murderer but on all of society for allowing someone like him to not only be released from jail, but also for being alive. If we had the balls to do what is needed to protect ourselves from the evils of society many people would still be alive. I have to disagree with you on many counts ! Canada: Has a very low repeat murder rate, I believe it is 0.3% and the vast majority of these repeat murderers were convicted for manslaughter (in other words they would be released eventually. I do understand that it open the debate for manslaughter punishment, but that is a different debate). I understand that Canada isn't perfect, but we do do a great job rehabilitating 1st degree and 2nd degree murderers. The recidivism rate for these murderers are extremely low (approx. 0.1%). This is not during a 1 or 2 year study, but the total released during a period from 1975 - 1999 (ie. 24 years). "Conditional Release and Homicide Offences Between 1975 and 1999, there were 11,783 releases of offenders into the community on parole or statutory release who were serving sentences for murder (4,131), or manslaughter (7,752). Of these, 37 (0.3%) were subsequently convicted for further homicide offensives involving the deaths of 58 people in Canada. Thirteen of these repeat homicide offenders had originally been convicted of murder." www.npb-cnlc.gc.ca/rprts/pls_2002-eng.shtmlI understand your stance that 1 repeat murder is too many, but it is not as dark as you first suggested (And no, I wouldn't want one of these murderers as a neighbor). United States: No matter if you support the death penalty or oppose it, I believe you have to agree with the fact that "JUST" being tough on crime does not cut it anymore. In reality, I believe, the people should ask their politicians to stop being tough on crime and actually do something about crime ! It is no secret that being tough on crime is simple rhetoric that allows politicians to do nothing. While I do concur that all crime can not be prevented, I truly believe that a lot can be prevented. I also admit that it is not an easy task, nor a quick task, but (again) I believe, it is a very important task. It shouldn't be a shock that the great ole USA, has a very serious problem with murder that other similar countries do not. Please understand that this is not an attempt to bash the US, but just my opinion that the US can do so much more, yet decides not to. If you believe in the DP, fine support the candidate the will uphold it, as long as he/she will do more than just that. If not this board will continue to have more and more victims of the worst crime. The fact of the matter is that it is an epidemic and money doesn't really matter, if you are not alive to enjoy it. Ron (I know it sounds preachy) Good morning, not having the time at the moment to answer your post piece by piece as it deserves, I am just going to bring up one point. You stated that most were manslaughter. Yes they were but remember they often bargain down a 2nd degree murder charge to one of simple manslaughter. It happened here in Kelowna a couple of weeks back. A drug dealer and his partner kidnapped a young mother who owed them money, took her out to bush, proceeded to beat her up, and then kill her with a knife. The judge sentenced the dealer who actually used the knife to murder. However he felt the remorse the 2nd one showed was legitimate and gave him a manslaughter sentence. This criminal had taken part in the kidnapping, and he admitted to having hit, and kicked the victim until she was unconscious, he didn't however use the knife. I am just bring this up as an example of a manslaughter charge which in my opinion should be a murder charge. I can come up with more of them, but I am sure you are able to also.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Mar 2, 2009 9:15:53 GMT -6
Sorry , Just the US Storm ?. Lets not forget the rest, the Canadians, the SAustralians, the Kiwi's etc etc. Storm the next thing you will be telling me is that you guys won the war all by your self. You can have the last word, im off home. XXX Do you know how this whole argument started? It started with SDL calling Eisenhower an egghead. I find it strange when someone talks about his family suffering in the Holocaust and at the same time talks down someone, who was supreme commander of Allied forces during WWII, who helped defeat the people who murdered his family.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Mar 2, 2009 9:19:43 GMT -6
Do you know how this whole argument started? It started with SDL calling Eisenhower an egghead. I find it strange when someone talks about his family suffering in the Holocaust and at the same time talks down someone, who was supreme commander of Allied forces during WWII, who helped defeat the people who murdered his family. You find it strange that SDL is the archetypal ungrateful bastard? I thought he demonstrated that here with nearly every post.
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Mar 2, 2009 9:21:25 GMT -6
Hi bob, i will answer then i must go.
Firstly, you never split your forces. Supid stupid stupid.
Secondly, Stalingrad became a battle of ideoligy more then a battle. Sending a battle field army into an urban environemtnwas like sending conscript to a jungle. You will get buggered. Get my drift. They did when they entered that city. Weather, their home front and their battle plans by (Hitler) not his generals were to blame for that defeat. Withdrawal and regroup. Hitler wouldnt allow that so they got stuffed fro three years. Stingrad was the turning point. Bob, you can have a ph-bloody-d in history, couldnt care a less. What ive learned from 30 years and reading countless books from all sides and all persepctives is this. Always read books on the subjects not written by an national on that side, either the victor or the vanquished. reason beaing because you will read bias accounts, flag waving points of view, almost mythical stoires of herowisum etc etc these are incorrect and false.
The fact remains Bob, Eik didnt have any authority on the Eastern Front, yes or no? That was the question originally asked.
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Mar 2, 2009 9:22:27 GMT -6
Storm i never argue with you , i would lose. Men always lose against woman. fact i debate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2009 9:35:24 GMT -6
Hi bob, i will answer then i must go. Firstly, you never split your forces. Supid stupid stupid. Secondly, Stalingrad became a battle of ideoligy more then a battle. Sending a battle field army into an urban environemtnwas like sending conscript to a jungle. You will get buggered. Get my drift. They did when they entered that city. Weather, their home front and their battle plans by (Hitler) not his generals were to blame for that defeat. Withdrawal and regroup. Hitler wouldnt allow that so they got stuffed fro three years. Stingrad was the turning point. Bob, you can have a ph-bloody-d in history, couldnt care a less. What ive learned from 30 years and reading countless books from all sides and all persepctives is this. Always read books on the subjects not written by an national on that side, either the victor or the vanquished. reason beaing because you will read bias accounts, flag waving points of view, almost mythical stoires of herowisum etc etc these are incorrect and false. The fact remains Bob, Eik didnt have any authority on the Eastern Front, yes or no? That was the question originally asked. Yes that is true Eik didn't have any authority over the Soviet troops. However the US started giving the Ruskies war materials from the very start, much like they did for England. Though they hadn't officially entered the war they ensured that Hitler didn't overrun either side.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Mar 2, 2009 9:58:17 GMT -6
Do you know how this whole argument started? It started with SDL calling Eisenhower an egghead. I find it strange when someone talks about his family suffering in the Holocaust and at the same time talks down someone, who was supreme commander of Allied forces during WWII, who helped defeat the people who murdered his family. You find it strange that SDL is the archetypal ungrateful bastard? I thought he demonstrated that here with nearly every post. Point taken.
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Mar 3, 2009 2:11:31 GMT -6
Egghead must mean something else on your side of the pond? Egghead here means a brainstormer, a very intelligent person, a genious. Eik was a Egghead, he was also a brilliant commander.
|
|