You should see him argue for the murder of pregnant women and their children. He’s a stand up guy, he is.
While I personally feel that crimes committed by those under 18 should NOT be candidates for the death penalty, how can you argue that killing someone in their 20s is killing a child? At what age to you think someone shold be considered an adult?
Do you realize that statements like this make you look like a nut, thereby allowing/mandating that people ignore what you have to say? Grow up. And if you truly believe this, either go get help or jump off a bridge. I don’t think it’s sade for the rest of us to have you hanging around in your current state.
We can disagree on some of these points, but you are the one who has now toned down your rhetoric.
You claim that the change will be generational. I agree. So why were you cheering for more repression that may lead to civil war? How much of the generational change will occur as long as the theocrats can continue to wave the posturing of the Great Satan in front of the younger people? I have always wondered if the Cold War would have ended a half-generation sooner if the U.S. and allies had followed the actual directions of George Kennan who, having set forth the initial guidelines of containment had to spend the next forty years of his life arguing against the over-aggressive policies of one administration after the other. I suspect that sabre-rattling has done as much as anything else to prolong such situations.
Well, here’s some stuff written before the Supreme Court came down with its Roper decision this year.From the Dallas News:
And from the Washington Post:
If those people weren’t actually executed while they were juveniles, this is only because the wheels of justice and the mandatory appeals process tend to grind slowly in the United States. The evidence shows that juries and the judicial systems of some US states have been perfectly willing to sentence minors to death.
Here’s a question for you:
Case 1: Offence committed at age 16; tried at age 16; sentenced to death at age 16; executed at age 17.
Case 2: Offence committed at age 16; tried at age 16; sentenced to death at age 16; executed at age 21.
Do you believe that there is any fundamental difference in the principles underlying the death sentence in these two cases?
And one more question, if you’re feeling generous. You have, on a few occasions, described yourself as a “moderate” on these Boards. Would you mind pointing me to the time and place when “moderate” was redefined to mean “mouth-breathing, spittle-flecked moron”?
While playing Outrage Bingo is somewhat less than totally edifying, there’s a valid point there. The Bush Regime launched a war of aggression against a sovereign state, legalized and handwaved torture and rape, got the oil facilities guarded before they got the electricity and clean water back on, contracted all reconstruction work out to their cronies, etc…
While the mullahs have one brand of barbarism, Bush and his flock of demons have their own. Check luc’s current front page thread about more Abu Graib photos and tell me that the Bush Regime is not staffed by a bunch of barbarians who condone rape and murder.
And, honestly, at this point, it’s really hard to see eye to eye with Bush supporters. One wonders just what it would take for some to stop supporting a man who is, by any spinning of the phrase, an evil unethical rapacious fuck.
Cite? Particularly the “legalized” part.
Please, show me where Bush or anyone in his administration has CONDONED rape. You can’r see eye-to-eye because you are blinded by hate. There is a huge space between being wrong about WMDs or going to war and not executing well and the evil you ascribe to him.
My advice, after you realize you can’t supply the two cites I requested, go join Danalan, on whichver of the two journies he chooses.
This is just utterly ridiculous. I’ll put my left-wing credentials up against anyone’s, but when I see this kind of crap I start to realize why we lose elections.
There is no contradiction between detesting the Bush Presidency and criticizing its many faults and refusing to lump it in with disgraceful regimes such as those in Iran.
OK. I’m opposed to the death penalty. I’m also opposed more specifically to executing anyone for crimes committed as a minor. But you have left out a third case which I think is the more common one.
Case 3: Offense committed at age 16; tried at 18; sentenced to death at age 18; executed at 21.
Personally I don’t think it should make a difference - I think the penalty you receive should be based on the culpability when the crime was committed. But the case 3 example is possible, and I think more common, so should be considered.
That said, I am not sure we should consider ourselves vastly more civilized because we put a 16 year old in prison for life without the possibility of parole, into a system riddled with abuse, rape, and untreated mental illness, as opposed to executing him. Capital Punishment is one thing wrong with our system, and an easy one to target, but I think it is far from the most serious fault.
You’re probably right that this is a more common scenario, and i probably should have included it.
Agree with all of this.
You haven’t been reading the news, have you?
Google “ACLU” “Bush” “Abu Graib” “Cameras”, etc…
Maybe I’ll feel more charitable later on.
Bush has threatened to oppose any calls for oversight of the still ongoing abuse in Abu Graib. So, um, he’s just supporting and enabling and defending it, not condoning it. My mistake :rolleyes:.
Blinded by hate, following the news. Ya know, six of one, half dozen of another.
Hah. “being wrong about WMD”
That’s a very interesting way to describe the actions of the OSP in light of the Downing Street memos. Good try though.
Fuck that ignorant noise. I don’t feel like digging up a few years of cites for what should goddamn well be common knowledge at this point. Maybe when I’m feeling charitable I’ll dig up all the Abu Graib articles and revelations over the years, but I’d prefer if you’d educate yourself before I do so.
Not America! Not the US! The fucking Bush Administration and the people who voted them into office. The Bush Administration has been fucking up left and right, and it’s only fair to lay the blame at their feet when they have so thoroughly earned it. I’m not sayng the Bush Admin is directly responsible for these kids being so maltreated, but they have done things that have made it possible for the fucking fascists responsible for this outrage to solidify their hold on power.
Oh, yeah. Like the Americans didn’t roll over and spread 'em for the Patriot Act.
No, you made a specific claim. So YOU supply the cite. Or do you not know how a debate operates? Either that or retract it your ridiculous claim.
So, assuming you are correct, in your mind “threatening to oppose oversight of ongoing abuse” = “supporting and enabling and defending it”? And you guys think Bush lives in a black/white world. Sheesh. But first, why don’t you show us where you got the idea that Bush has threatened to oppose oversight on ongoing abuse. Again cite or retract.
No one asked you to dig up “a few years of cites” just one or two from a reputable source. And if it’s such common knowledge, it should be quite easy. But you won’t. I know it. And I know why: you’re just a punk with a big mouth. So back it up, buddy. Go ahead, we’re waiting…
…you know, like you did with Bush “condoning” rape…
…still waiting…
Yes, asshole. I made a specific claim, go fucking use google so you can find out any of the goddamn facts of the matter before you slap some keys on a keyboard, you goddamn joyfully ignorant fuck.
I will not cater to militant ignorance. If you refuse to educate yourself and, at the very least, do a google search before you attempt to gainsay me, then you can fuck off.
Assuming I’m correct?
You haven’t done the goddamn research, you don’t have a fucking clue what’s going on, and you have the fucking nerve to ‘assume’ I’m correct? Read a fucking newspaper and then talk to me about ‘assuming’ anything.
And yes, if people are trying to stop the abuse, which includes rape, torture, and murder, and then someone blocks their efforts to stop it, what would you call it?
Yeah, where “allowing abuse to continue unchecked.” is the same as “allowing abuse to continue unchecked.” Silly black and white dichotomy, I agree.
Fuck you, you ignorant tool. How dare you even get into a debate when you’re ignorant of all of its specifics? Do a fucking google search and then get back to me asshole.
You did, because you’re an ignorant bottom feeding fool who refuses to educate himself before getting involved in a debate. Fuck off.
No, I most certainly won’t. You’re an asshole without any understanding or knowledge of the facts who still sees fit to hold forth on a subject. Fucking google it. Don’t rely on being a lazy ignorant fuck.
Nope. Do a fucking google search. Stop being ignorant. Stop being militant in your ignorance. Learn something! I’m not here to hold your hand, I’m not here to walk you through it, and I’m certainly not here to debate with some fool who can’t even be bothered to find out the facts before getting into a debate.
Tell ya what, you ignorant wide-mouthed fuck, I’ll help you put the training wheels on for you. Google “White House threatens veto on detainee policies.” Then do some further google searches. There’s nothing I find more distasteful than an uneducated ignorant fool jamming his fingers in his ears and singing “lalalalala, I can’t heaaaaaaar you.”
Fucking google the facts first, or slink the fuck out of the thread with your tail between your legs.
While you’re at it, google “Iraq child prisoners”, google “CIA Iraq Prison” , hell google “ACLU Bush torture”.
Just fucking learn something before you open your yap again, mmmkay? If your next post is just another instance of you saying
“Well, I’m totally ignorant of everything concerning the case and I can’t be bothered to learn anything, but you’re wrong!”
I think we’ll be able to conclude that you’re just an ignorant handwaver without the fucking intellectual honesty to find out the facts before denying them.
Precisely as I predicted.
FYI for the future, assuming your arrogant stupidity doesn’t cause you to walk in front of a bus, when you’re in a DEBATE, and you make a specific statement of fact that the other side refutes, it falls to YOU to prove your statement correct.
There are two reasons for this, both of which might be new to you.
One is good manners. You are given the choice of either sharing the source of your knowledge (which in your case pleading ignorance might be a valid defense) or retracting your mis-statement.
The other has to do with the rules of logic. One cannot prove a negative. So it falls to you to show that what you state is actually correct.
And that means in the real world, not in some, fetid, diseased, weak mass that might reside between your ears.
Let me give you an easy example. If in a debate I said that Michael Moore was a pedophile and a member of NAMBLA (I’m trying to make it easy and use terms you might be familiar with), and you didn’t think that to be the case, it would then fall to me to either show proof of Michael Moore fondling and sodomizing young boys and a membership list from NAMBLA, or retract my ridiculous statement.
Now go ahead, rant away without supplying the cites and prove me right. AGAIN!!
“White House threatens veto on detainee policies.”
Too bad they didn’t think about that “diverting resources from the war” before traipsing off to Iraq.
I already told you, you ignorant fuck, I refuse to do your research for you. Pat yourself on the back for proving what I’ve already freely admitted. Troglodyte.
Actually, you stupid son of a bitch, a DEBATE require two people who at least know the issues involved. You do not!. You are totally ignorant, and I refuse to cater to an ignorant asshole. I simply refuse.
Fuck you, you janus faced piece of shit. How dare you, an ignorant loud mouthed fuck, speak of good manners? Before you get into a debate, you should know what the fuck you’re talking about. I refuse to cater to assholes like you. I’m fucking sick to death of assholes like you.
You come into a debate, ignorant of even the most basic facts, and then act like a victim when I refuse to hold your hand. Fuck off you lazy intellectually dishonest whore of a debater. Fuck you.
You are totally ignorant of everything around this case, and you, evidently, still refuse to google and educate yourself. All your reponses in this thread may be boiled down to you saying:
“I haven’t read a damn thing, and I’m totally ignorant, but I want you to treat me as if I’m actually engaging in a debate rather than masturbating all over my keyboard.”
Fuck you spunky. I’m so fucking sick of ignorant fucks who jump into a debate without a clue as to what’s going on. Fucking google something you lazy waste of space.
One of us hasn’t opened a newspaper, read a webcite, or followed the story enough to know even the basics. That same person is now demanding that their ignorance be catered to. Give you three guesses as to whether that’s you or me.
As such, since you’re an ignorant schmuck who still wants to talk like a big boy, which of us do you think has some diseased mass between his ears, eh? Is it the guy who reads and knows stuff, or the ignorant asshole who likes seeing himself type?
,
Funny… as you’re not familiar with anything having to do with the actual debate you’ve stuck your nose into. Ignorant shitstain.
Yes, asshole, you are undeserving of any response other than condescension. Google fucking something. Educate yourself before you deny another claim based on the fact that since you refuse to read anything, you must be right. You’re revolting.