Gary M Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Bingo. Same with Human Rights IMO. At some point if you do things offensive enough you no longer qualify as human and should not be offered those rights. Out of those 500, I bet there were 30,000 who deserved it. Pity we only execute the absolute worst of the worst rather than all who are deserving. I think having an Executive branch that is increasingly cutting the legislative branch out of the process is a lot bigger concern than a tiny handful of sub-humans being put down where they belong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Bingo. Same with Human Rights IMO. At some point if you do things offensive enough you no longer qualify as human and should not be offered those rights. Out of those 500, I bet there were 30,000 who deserved it. Pity we only execute the absolute worst of the worst rather than all who are deserving. I think having an Executive branch that is increasingly cutting the legislative branch and the states out of the governing process is a lot bigger concern than a tiny handful of sub-humans being put down where they belong. When you do away with the protections of the Rule of Law for some whom you dislike, you make all law arbitrary, and in doing so do away with all legal protections that even the most innocent have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 When you do away with the protections of the Rule of Law for some whom you dislike, you make all law arbitrary, You are not making any sense, the death penalty for certain crimes is "the rule of law" if you face a jury and found guilty then you get what you deserve. Totally unrelated to our current POTUS that thinks he can kill citizens at will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 (edited) You are not making any sense, the death penalty for certain crimes is "the rule of law" if you face a jury and found guilty then you get what you deserve. Totally unrelated to our current POTUS that thinks he can kill citizens at will. The legalized killing of citizens sets the precedent that if certain conditions are met, and with a public burden of proof, the government may justly kill it's citizens. Then the government then amends the conditions that must be met. Then the government amends the burden of proof. Then the government amends the branch of government responsible for the decision to execute. All powers entrusted to the government have been abused. Every single one of them. It's a slow, steady, and pervasive creep; and you seem to have identified that in every other aspect of government. I'm not sure why you are unable to see it in this one. Now, when the government kills a citizen, rather than being outraged as we should, we make excuses for an overreaching government. Edited June 28, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 (edited) And it's a woman, so they practice equal opportunity also when it comes to death row. Rick Perry doing his part for the Republican "War on Women" All those Texas abortion oppenents had to cheer themselves up somehow.... http://www.theonion....p-with-e,32973/ Hey someone gets killed who deserves it. Finally we get it right. Maybe if we called it "post birth aborted life" instead of execution it would be more palatable to liberals . Onion hilarious as usual btw. Edited June 28, 2013 by Dante Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Rick Perry doing his part for the Republican "War on Women" Hey someone gets killed who deserves it. Finally we get it right. Maybe if we called it "post birth aborted life" instead of execution it would be more palatable to liberals . Onion hilarious as usual btw. Well done on both points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Pro Life and Pro Death Penalty ... Anti Abortion and yet are anti Contraception - use of protection prevents pregnancy ergo prevents abortions. its that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Pro Life and Pro Death Penalty ... Anti Abortion and yet are anti Contraception - use of protection prevents pregnancy ergo prevents abortions. its that simple. Who involved with this story is anti-contraception? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Pro Life and Pro Death Penalty ... There's nothing wrong with that. The difference is due process. Anti Abortion and yet are anti Contraception - use of protection prevents pregnancy ergo prevents abortions. its that simple. That, though...yeah, anyone anti-contraception and anti-abortion needs to think things through a little more clearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Look up "Cameron Todd Willingham". In the face of overwhelming evidence that this man may have been innocent, Rick Perry's response was basically "well he probably did something wrong so he deserves it" and wouldn't stay the execution. It's easy to sit there in your dorm rooms and talk about execution like it's no big deal - but innocent people have been executed. That means two things: they were unlawfully deprived of their lives AND the a-hole who did the crime is still out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Look up "Cameron Todd Willingham". In the face of overwhelming evidence that this man may have been innocent, Rick Perry's response was basically "well he probably did something wrong so he deserves it" and wouldn't stay the execution. It's easy to sit there in your dorm rooms and talk about execution like it's no big deal - but innocent people have been executed. That means two things: they were unlawfully deprived of their lives AND the a-hole who did the crime is still out there. Well, I don't sit in a dorm room. I'm a little more adult. You've made some allegations, now why don't you at least make an attempt to back them up with some sort of proof? You could start with a link that might get the adults here thinking about what you are claiming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Look up "Cameron Todd Willingham". In the face of overwhelming evidence that this man may have been innocent, Rick Perry's response was basically "well he probably did something wrong so he deserves it" and wouldn't stay the execution. It's easy to sit there in your dorm rooms and talk about execution like it's no big deal - but innocent people have been executed. That means two things: they were unlawfully deprived of their lives AND the a-hole who did the crime is still out there. They were deprived of their lives by due process in being judged by a jury of their peers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 That, though...yeah, anyone anti-contraception and anti-abortion needs to think things through a little more clearly. anti-contraception, anti-abortion and anti-welfare for the trifecta...a walking, talking, mouth-breathing contradiction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Anti-welfare is a complete non-sequitor in that string. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Anti-welfare is a complete non-sequitor in that string. no it's not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 no it's not Expecting people to take care of themselves, and take personal responsibility for their actions, without government intervention has nothing at all to do with demanding that the government intervene by jumping into their bedrooms and Dr./patient relationships in order to make sure that people aren't using contrception and aren't having abortions. As I said, non-sequitor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Expecting people to take care of themselves, and take personal responsibility for their actions, without government intervention has nothing at all to do with demanding that the government intervene by jumping into their bedrooms and Dr./patient relationships in order to make sure that people aren't using contrception and aren't having abortions. As I said, non-sequitor. First, expecting all people to take care of themselves and take personal responsibility for their actions is a utopian pipe dream. Second, you're just cutting the chain of events off at a convenient point for your argument. Taking away abortion and contraception leads to more babies being produced by the most irresponsible people who are least ready to take care of the resulting offspring, directly leading to additional burdens on the rest of society. Touting this type of moral legislation and then bitching about welfare babies shows a complete disconnect in logical thinking. I get your whole Ayn Rand thing and I even like some of it, but at some point you have to realize that society will never live up to those ideals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts