Hey Liberals, I Propose a Compromise (2708 hits)
Category: NoneRating: -0.83 on 146 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by gbusman (View user info) at 2005-03-03 15:22:45 EST
I was talking with Wes the other night, and we got to talking about the death penalty. We have both been proponents of the death penalty for a while, but lately I've been asking myself, "What would Jesus do?" When Jesus encountered murderers, he forgave them. Unfortunately, no one on earth has that kind of power anymore, we obviously can't just say "You're forgiven" and release murderers back into the streets. So what to do?
Liberals have traditionally been very against the death penalty (why they're for saving the lives of murderers but killing babies I'll never understand, but I digress.) Nevertheless, I'm beginning to agree with them on that point. So I think if you're willing to give a little (which Wes and I are doubtful of, but I'll try anyway) we can reach a mutually agreeable situation, which is this:
We will no longer kill anyone for any crime. Instead, we will imprison them for life. While in prison, they will be forced to attend Christian church service once a week until they die. That is the compromise. I am willing to pay for criminals to live out their lives in prison as long as they are being rehabilitated in a Godly way. If you want Texas to agree to such a proposal, it has to be Christian. Not Muslim, not Buddhism, not Scientology, but Christianity.
Would any liberals have a problem with this? Are you truly as open minded as you claim to be? Did you stop reading this post after the word "Jesus" came up?
-Bus
User Reviews
Submitted by Perzik (user info) at 2005-03-10 07:26:49 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
By believing in only Christianity and forcing it upon anyone, who would be 'open-minded' then?
Submitted by Affinity (user info) at 2005-03-10 07:17:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
grammatical errors are a sign
of super intelligence by the way
Submitted by Affinity (user info) at 2005-03-10 07:15:16 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
this is so dumb it amazes me
that you can operate you're own limbs
Submitted by somnambulist (user info) at 2005-03-07 19:42:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
How about imprison them for life (or a long time) WITHOUT the Jail for Jesus shtuff. That's what most places without the death penalty do, and it isn't a bad idea.
Submitted by lava605 (user info) at 2005-03-07 19:38:05 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
You cant be fucking serious
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2005-03-07 13:21:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/61340
Shlongy at his new job
Submitted by InsoManiac (user info) at 2005-03-07 10:00:14 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
A VERY shotty premise.
So basically, you want me to agree that my tax dollars go towards some program to preach to these murderers for the rest of their lives? What if I wasnt a Christian? Why would it be acceptable for you to stop killing people "for me", in exchange for spending my money on something I dont believe in? What if I was Buddhist? Should my money go towards Christian ANYTHING? I think not. This is the problem with Republicans. For some reason, many of you seem to think that just because you are in the majority, that you are right. And Im not just talking about Christianity. I have yet to hear any Republican admit ANY mistakes that their party has made, right from the beginning of this country. And just because you and more than half of this country believes that Jesus died for them, and God is real, that you are right, and not only do you have the right to spend public money to spread that message at home, but you have the right to do it abroad as well. Presently, all the Democratic party is doing is trying to figure out what it did wrong. Its not quite smart enough at this point (elite my ass-George Bush isnt "elite"??!?? Grow up) to figure out why things went so wrong, but it does know that its in the shitter at the moment. If the Republicans do something wrong, they tend to just blame the "left wing media" or the "liberal blue states" for all the problems in this country.
You guys are ridiculous, and blind. Go home, stay there, dont ever vote again.
Submitted by pgaur (user info) at 2005-03-06 16:46:26 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Your main problem is your basic assumption that your religion is the right one, while every other religion is wrong. Why Christianity? Why not Buddhism, Judaism, etc?
Submitted by BoogieFevuh (user info) at 2005-03-06 16:10:41 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I'm liberal, and I'm for the death penalty. You think I wouldnt want to see Osama get crucified upside down, then shot in the face? You have to stop assuming everybody thinks either one way or another.
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2005-03-06 15:28:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
" rebuplican"
And it would seem I can't spell...
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2005-03-06 15:25:30 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
None of this matters. Gbusman has his feeble opinions and I'm not going to be able to sway them. It's hard not to come out swinging when you see stuff like this posted. I just wanted him to know what it felt like to be a non-Christian in today's society. I only ever directed my comments at him, mostly out of respect for the rest of the uber community. I don't really even consider myself a "Liberal." I'm just not following the Christian faith so I can not be a rebuplican in the modern system.
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2005-03-06 15:20:18 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Wow. This post has become one big scrolling example of pwnership, even by the people aligned with your side. I think that's the first time I've seen that happen on Uber.
Congratulations on actually pushing people away from your ideas. You've proved yourself a zealot, which is SO much more dangerous than your assumption that we're all intolerant liberals.
Wes should be pissed that you tried to shed the blame on him. You were proved to be an ignorant fanatic of an absolutely stupid idea and to save face, you try to deflect the blame to him. Like I started this whole damned thing off to begin with: "Stick to sports, Bus. You'll sound somewhat more intelligent."
...you know, "somewhat" might be stretching it.
Submitted by Slovin (user info) at 2005-03-06 11:55:59 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Failed.
Way to make up a medicore attempt at a "good cop-bad cop" story now that it's been proven your idea is a crock of shit. It's old hat and no one gives a damn about your argument but you.
You are a zealot. You must accept this, because all of your writing drips with it, and I'm not the only one to notice it.
--snip--
And then people talk about their government news channels while calling our news propoganda! We have free press! Liberals, you are all either evil or deceived. Everyone. You cannot honestly know all the facts and still be liberal without being evil. It's that simple. I just don't understand why so many of you gather here.
--snip--
Close-minded and unable to argue properly... check.
--snip--
All I have done is present arguments and waited for counter-arguments. I think you'll find me quite responsive if you have an ounce of reasonable thought to put forth. Good luck with that.
--snip--
Arrogance... check.
--snip--
Now this is the most ignorant thing I've read yet. I'm so sick of people calling God a problem in America. Do you know where "One nation under God" brought us to? The greatest and most powerful nation on earth.
--snip--
Unsubstantiated (and blatantly false/irrelevent) statements... check.
--snip--
We will not kill you, but you have to sit through a sermon for one hour per week. Is that really too much to ask? Are you all really that intolerant?
--snip--
Freudian deflection... check.
--snip--
Thank you. I was dreading getting up this morning, but you have no idea how much you just made my day. I have never before been so convinced that I am on the side of good. If this guy is against me, I must be saying something right.
--snip--
It's easy to claim to be on the side of good when you propose your own dumbass one-sided ideas and claim to have the support of an entire religion and political party for it. Most of them would call you an idiot, too. Have you tried submitting this idea to a conservative board to see what happens?
Damn, already checked arrogance.
--snip--
As for the slippery slope... this is a commonly known logical fallacy along the lines of, "Allowing two men to marry? What's next? Marrying goats?"
--snip--
Lack of research and/or understanding of logic... check.
Yep, results are conclusive: You're a pompous, ignorant asshole.
But you'll have a great day anyway, because you're on the side of good, right? I just hope the rest of the "good" people aren't like you, although it would explain the state of world affairs.
Submitted by AlwaysAnEagle (user info) at 2005-03-06 10:01:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-03-06 03:14:14 (#)
Ranking: -2
Oh shut the hell up, there's an idiot on your side for every one on ours
You got a reaction like you did because you proposed the stupidest thing ever
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't act like you're going to debate the issue all through the post, and then when things get rough, you say "oh it was just a social experiment to prove that liberals are assholes" in this stupid supercilious way.
I was pretty excited about this post because it seemed like some decent debate could go on, but with every review that hope dimmed a little.
Submitted by the_mysterious_stranger (user info) at 2005-03-06 09:01:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
-----------------------------------------
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2005-03-06 01:49:09 (#)
Ranking: -2
You're right about one thing. The hate. I do hate you, gbusman. I hate everyone like you, I hate your kind. Now that you've stirred up a shit storm you're trying to back out of it, making it seem like it was all a joke. Like it was some social experiment. Bullshit. You would destroy me and my way of life in an instant if you could, because I'm not like you. You are a zealot, a primate, a degenerate.
Christianity is a faith. Have your faith, little person, but I have no desire to share it
----------------------------------------------------------------
Idiot. You do realize that you sound just a little bit hatefull yourself, no?
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-03-06 03:14:14 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Oh shut the hell up, there's an idiot on your side for every one on ours
You got a reaction like you did because you proposed the stupidest thing ever
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2005-03-06 01:49:09 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
You're right about one thing. The hate. I do hate you, gbusman. I hate everyone like you, I hate your kind. Now that you've stirred up a shit storm you're trying to back out of it, making it seem like it was all a joke. Like it was some social experiment. Bullshit. You would destroy me and my way of life in an instant if you could, because I'm not like you. You are a zealot, a primate, a degenerate.
Christianity is a faith. Have your faith, little person, but I have no desire to share it
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2005-03-06 01:24:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I can't believe this has gotten so much heat, but I think it's enough so I will not reply here again.
This idea started one night when we were just kidding around about liberal values. The conversation went something like this:
B: "You know, liberals are against the death penalty, that's not a bad thing. Jesus woulnd't kill anyone for a sin."
W: "Are you kidding? They're not against it because they're against killing, they're against it because they hate conservatives and conservatives are for the death penalty."
B: "No man, I think they're really good people at heart, and just a little misguided."
W: "No way. Liberals are evil. They would rather kill someone than have them become a Christian."
B: "I don't think so... What if we agreed to stop killing people for crimes, but they had to become Chrisitan. Think they would agree to that?"
W: "No way dude, those people won't compromise on anything. They just hate."
B: "I really don't think they're like that."
W: "I know they are."
B: "Well I happen to know a place where we can reach a lot of liberals, let's see."
So I posted this knowing there was no way that it could ever happen legally, for the very reason some of you brought up about the seperation of church and state. But as you can see, that really wasn't the issue, it was to gauge your reaction. A few of you argued this for the right reason, and if it means anything to you, I would consider you a good person. The majority of you just make me shake my head and laugh while wanting to cry.
At any rate, this has been quite entertaining and enlightening. You can leave your scathing messages to me here if you want, but I'm done with this. I think Wes won.
-Bus
Submitted by antluvdog (user info) at 2005-03-06 00:43:49 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
"Did you stop reading this post after the word "Jesus" came up?"
********************
No, actually, I stopped reading after the words "Christian church service" came up.
Seriously, get off your fucking soapbox. Christianity isn't the "right" religion. This post is the only thing more pointless than the suggestion of shoving Christianity down people's throats.
Open minded? Am I a bad Christian because I curse and I'm Roman Catholic?
Asshole.
Submitted by AlwaysAnEagle (user info) at 2005-03-05 19:29:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Pretty much what DMD said.
I get that the slippery slope is both overused and often untrue, but in this case, the slope is extremely clear...to the point of the spread being inevitable.
Here's how it goes.
"Can we make parolees go to church?"
"No."
"Why not? People serving life sentences are made to."
"Ah. Dammit."
Once you allow religion into one area of the justice system, it FOLLOWS LOGICALLY that it will spread to all corners of it. There's a book called "If You Give A Mouse A Cookie"? All about giving an inch and taking a mile? Yeah. You know what? If getting religion into people's lives was what I gave a shit about, I'd ram my foot in that door if it opened an INCH, which it would if this plan of yours were to go into effect, and I'd push and shove until I was chilling on the justice system's couch. And maybe you wouldn't. Maybe you would just want the life sentence folks to have to listen to the Godspeak. But there are a whole lot more people who would love to see it keep going until Christianity was the national religion.
"Exactly. One can feel much less guilty about executing a lost soul, rationalizing that they all go the same place eventually anyway. However, executing a potentially saved soul...condemning one to hell when God may have a higher purpose in mind for them...would be ungodly."
This sounds to me like the treatment or execution of prisoners is all about YOUR guilt as a Christian. Who cares? Who. The hell. Cares. It doesn't have anything to DO with you, or with ANY Christian. It is about societal consequences for violent acts by individuals who are NOT. YOU. This is exactly my problem with some Christians...I don't give a shit what you want to worship or how you do it, but when you want to make everyone else play by your rules that YOU CHOOSE TO FOLLOW INDEPENDENTLY, I have a very, very big problem with it. And you know what? A person who murders people indiscriminately with no remorse can go through the motions of confession every hour on the hour for the rest of his pathetic life, and it doesn't make a DAMN. DIFFERENCE. This is another issue I have. You basically apologize to a priest, you do some penance maybe, and you supposedly have a clean slate. That's the biggest shirking of responsibility I've ever heard of. I detest that about Catholicism. The greatest thing YOU can do to be a good Christian is to live your life in a "Godly" way. YOU cannot save other people's souls. They have to do that themselves.
"And concerning gaining religious influence? Influence over who? A handful of people locked away from society until they die? So what? We're not forcing them to believe anything. Just to hear a message. What else do they have to do? "
If you're not forcing them to believe anything, then there is absolutely no point to this plan, because their souls would not be saved. You cannot be saved OR improved in any way if you don't believe what's supposed to be saving you. It's just common sense. Let's pretend for a minute that Christianity is the most perfect, pure, philanthropic religion on Earth, and that NO Christian has ever, in the history of mankind, used his religion to validate harm towards another person, and say that the convicts are forced to attend Christian services because of this. They only become better people if they BELIEVE IT AND ACT ON IT, not if they LISTEN to it. ALL RELIGIONS RELY COMPLETELY ON FAITH, OR ELSE EVERYONE WOULD BE THE SAME RELIGION.
Submitted by jayjonze (user info) at 2005-03-05 19:10:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
While in prison, they will be forced to attend Christian church service once a week until they die
---------------
Why? What is your reasoning? You try to make an argument, yet you don't back it up with anything.
Submitted by jayjonze (user info) at 2005-03-05 18:33:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/61298
PWNED!!
Submitted by Freakmagnet (user info) at 2005-03-05 18:27:41 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Seriously, why Christianity. Teach them basic morals, Christianity isn't the only religion that does that.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-03-05 15:38:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
As for the slippery slope... this is a commonly known logical fallacy along the lines of, "Allowing two men to marry? What's next? Marrying goats?"
---------
Oh boy, someone's new to logic
It's only fallacy if the hypothesized consequences aren't reasonably foreseeable. Just because a term has the same name as a fallacy doesn't make it a fallacy. That would be a commonly known logical fallacy called 'equivocation.'
AlwaysAnEagle's hypothesized consequences aren't only foreseeable, but likely. Trashing separation of church and state by letting Christianity into a government system is extremely dangerous because it sets precedent for other issues. And despite your self-proclamations of how well-meaning and tolerant you are, those characteristics aren't uniform throughout the Christian community, and certainly not throughout the politicians who have the most say on what will be done once this precedent is set.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-03-05 14:06:12 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
This post sucks.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-03-05 14:05:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Nick, your heart is in the right place, but your brain is suffering from operator error.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-03-05 08:56:54 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Bizdorph (user info) at 2005-03-05 08:47:02 (#)
Ranking: -2
I am a devout Liveral and I think the death penalty rules. Why should anyone receive life imprisonment?
"Uh, yeah. I killed 14 people and then raped their dead carcasses."
"You sick, sick man. As punishment we will give you free food, shelter, and access to a gym for the rest of your life, with the only downside being rape."
What the hell.
-----------------------------------
Never underestimate just what a life sentence would mean, you stupid boy.
Before you say it, no I have no idea what it would do to me. That's why I don't belittle it.
Submitted by Bizdorph (user info) at 2005-03-05 08:47:02 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I am a devout Liveral and I think the death penalty rules. Why should anyone receive life imprisonment?
"Uh, yeah. I killed 14 people and then raped their dead carcasses."
"You sick, sick man. As punishment we will give you free food, shelter, and access to a gym for the rest of your life, with the only downside being rape."
What the hell.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-03-05 08:19:38 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
http://www.ubersite.com/m/61166
A more indepth look at the issue, though that doesn't mean much in this case.
Submitted by Stin (user info) at 2005-03-05 08:06:02 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
What I don't understand is why issues like this come down to such broad stereotypes. You believe this so you must be a bad person, you're against the death penalty so you must be a bleeding-heart liberal, you're a Christian so you must be right-wing... all this lumping together of people is one reason you don't feel you're getting solid arguments back, Gbus. If you can accept that people of whatever religion, political affiliation, gender, whatever all have equally valid points because they're people, then you will find that people are a lot more willing to listen and contribute to your debate.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-03-05 03:26:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Linkwhore
To a post with a conservative that has a brain.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/61260
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2005-03-05 03:19:38 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
You're a sub-human creature, a primative. Only children and fools stand behind imaginary friends in the sky and declare themselves pure. "On the side of good." Your people are a sickness, infecting this country, this planet. Like all small, feeble things, your time on this earth shall pass. Hopefully, you will not have caused the human race too much suffering. Once again, CHRISTIAN FILTH.
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2005-03-04 20:51:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by AlwaysAnEagle (user info) at 2005-03-04 18:41:57 (#)
Ranking: 0
You're saying conservatives will give up killing people if they can...save them?
_________________________________
Exactly. One can feel much less guilty about executing a lost soul, rationalizing that they all go the same place eventually anyway. However, executing a potentially saved soul... condemning one to hell when God may have a higher purpose in mind for them... would be ungodly.
I realize I come across as a Christian nut when explaining this, but I'm merely trying to explain the rationale under which Christians will be willing to relinquish the death penalty.
As for the slippery slope... this is a commonly known logical fallacy along the lines of, "Allowing two men to marry? What's next? Marrying goats?"
And concerning gaining religious influence? Influence over who? A handful of people locked away from society until they die? So what? We're not forcing them to believe anything. Just to hear a message. What else do they have to do?
-Bus
Submitted by bicklefragile (user info) at 2005-03-04 19:47:39 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
what a close-minded elitist fuck.
Submitted by AlwaysAnEagle (user info) at 2005-03-04 18:41:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
No prob.
You have a couple selective hearing issues here, as well as some problems with deciding where this should go.
If you want to look at it from a moral rehabilitation perspective, then I am done with this argument. My biggest problem with ANY religion is when its members try and force it onto others. As I said in my Locke paraphrase, you cannot force someone to believe that salvation will come from a certain kind of devotion, or even to believe in God Himself. You will save ZERO souls if you force Christianity in ANY form (or any other religion, for that matter) on someone. Just going through the motions isn't enough. You have to believe in your religion, or it will do nothing for you on this Earth or any other.
What is WRONG with your proposal, if I assume that you are NOT worrying about moral rehabilitation, is that it lets religion ACTIVELY into government. I will be the first to agree and not have a problem with the fact that there are massive Judeo-Christian influences in the US government, but there are also laws prohibiting the combination and interference of church and state. As I said in my previous review, it will spread. Even if Christianity as a forced rehabilative process ONLY spreads into the parole system - a very small hop - it is still too much and too influential. This country is based on freedom...freedom to practice whatever damn religion you want. That makes it unacceptable for an entire WING of the federal government to mandate the practice of Christianity. It is a slippery slope issue.
Your opening paragraphs about sins being equal, etc. are fine and good, but I refer you to my first paragraph here about salvation and belief. I'm not disregarding them, it's just a matter of dogma, so I can't really do anything with it. Sure, that's fine if that's your belief, okay...but it's not really necessary to government adoption of your plan.
Again, I'll say that your rehabbing vs. not rehabbing conflict is a little odd to me. If you're not intending to rehab these criminals, then you're just spending a lot of money and time forcing a religion on people who will never apply the benefit of it IF they happen to adopt the tenets of the religion sincerely while at the same time allowing a dangerous precedent in American government's relationship with religion. It's not a compromise because only your side gains...you gain the religious influence.
I think that the death penalty aversion and the pro-choice stance of political liberals are both severely misunderstood things. It's not that your average liberal thinks that EVERYONE should have an abortion or NO ONE should be exectued, but rather that both situations be applied appropriately.
Your compromise doesn't really make sense when you line it up with your perception of what liberals want. "Well fine. Conservatives want the death penalty, but we're Christian so we care about saving souls. So you liberal pussies can have your stays of execution so we can save their souls." You're saying conservatives will give up killing people if they can...save them?
Submitted by Auf-Der-Maur (user info) at 2005-03-04 18:00:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
wait, I know what everyone can agree to, from hardcore marxists to hardxXxcore facists. Force everyone to become a christian, and "relocate" them if they disagree. That way, everyone will be good
Submitted by olivia_tremor_control (user info) at 2005-03-04 17:41:02 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
"While in prison, they will be forced to attend Christian church service once a week until they die"
not everyone in the united states is a christian you dumbfuck. people like YOU are the ones that encourage stereotyping of republicans and conservatives as hicks and dumbasses when theres plenty of smart people in the party. but its things like this that prompt people to call you complete morons, which is unfair to everyone else. die.
Submitted by godking (user info) at 2005-03-04 12:23:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Forced Christianity has such a nasty ring to it. Why not use the more acceptable, historical terms like 'crusade' or 'inquisition.'
GK
Submitted by FelizJbirth (user info) at 2005-03-04 12:06:30 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I don't like the death penalty OR Christanity, especially forced Christianity. It seems to me any good Christian wouldn't like FORCED Christianity either.
Kind of a stupid proposal if you ask me. How about instead of bombing people in the name of God, we give the death penalty to people who try to justify such actions? That sounds more reasonable to me.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-03-04 11:51:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I wouldn't bother quibbling over semantics. Denomination isn't really a factor, a better question might be "would religion, any religion address the needs of the criminals and society?" or how about "Remove Death Row, so death means death."
Submitted by godking (user info) at 2005-03-04 11:38:02 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Hear is one seriously flawed aspects of your proposal:
The rehabilitation choice must be Christianity, but which kind? Would this be Roman Catholic? They do make up half of all Christians in the world. Then again, since we are talking about the United States, The Baptists would definitely not be happy about that choice, and then again which type of their own sub-sects should they pick? The Methodists make up a decent population percentage. What about the Lutherans? Presbyterians may want to run a few prisons. You can't leave out the Episcopalians. The Pentecostals might sue for not having their say. We may not want to make the Davidians unhappy, as the government tells us they are well armed. The mormons are quite well known for fighting in court against the other sects. The Amish don't seem to cause much trouble, what about them? Let's not forget the Adventists, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Latter Day Saints, The Nazarene, etc. Who has the right to say which Christianity is picked? Christians have butchered each other for centuries just over which version is right. How would they decide which version is right to teach criminals?
GK
Submitted by thaumaturge (user info) at 2005-03-04 11:11:04 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
"Did you stop reading this post after the word "Jesus" came up? "
Should have.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-03-04 08:36:47 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-03-04 08:31:02 (#)
Ranking: 2
And don't cry for babies, the are just meat
----------------------
Tasty meat too.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-03-04 08:31:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
And don't cry for babies, the are just meat. They have the potential, but it has not been realised. Abortions are unfortunate but a baby isn't a fully formed person, as such I value them less. Not to say if we have a flood we should use babies to keep our playstations dry, but come on, it's not like they're real people.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-03-04 08:27:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Looking at morality on this question is absurd, simply looking at the mass of different responses flooding this post means we could be debating such abstractions till the pubs open. You must look at the simple consequences of the actions and select the best one. So lets break it down point by point.
Firstly the whole capital punishment thing. Nice idea, criminals are bastards so lets kill em'. Of course it's never quite that simple, there is no such thing as a cardboard cut out bad guy outside of Hollywood, but we will not delude ourselves in thinking this is even the slightest factor in this matter. It comes down to political principle, the axis on which the general social policy is formed, in that the purpose of engaging in such activity is to show you as 'tough'. Tough on crime, strong government, effective government is the impression that is intended. It may even be the intended effect but lets not get ahead of ourselves.
Secondly religion and it's rehabilative powers. Religion's main strength is the power of positive thought. The power of belief. That power is built on a rigid idea, an idea that produces a handy answer to whatever bad thing comes along. Example: I asked that girl out and she rejected me, but that's ok because God loves me and will look after me. In theory it could work.
So the first point you've got to make your own opinion on what kind of government/society you want. As for the second, well theoretically it would work. Here's the thing though. Religion scares the shit out of me. To be able to justify anything you think or do without tangible proof, without even rational thought? Scary shit indeed.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-03-04 08:23:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
FUck this post----go argue on one of mine.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-03-04 08:16:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-03-04 08:02:15 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-03-03 19:44:52 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-03-03 19:37:06 (#)
Ranking: 0
Philosophically, i see your point Thorpe. If it's immoral to kill a human, why not a flower?
----------------------------------------------------
That wasn't my point at all. I was saying it is not immoral to kill a flower, because it has no self-awareness. And thus, it is not immoral to kill a foetus before brainwaves commence, considering it is not morally "alive".
----------------------------------------------------
Then killing a braindead person is absolutely fine?
----------
If you are next of kin, yes. That's your right under current law. At least here it is. Until Jeb Bush gets his way.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-03-04 08:02:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-03-03 19:44:52 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-03-03 19:37:06 (#)
Ranking: 0
Philosophically, i see your point Thorpe. If it's immoral to kill a human, why not a flower?
----------------------------------------------------
That wasn't my point at all. I was saying it is not immoral to kill a flower, because it has no self-awareness. And thus, it is not immoral to kill a foetus before brainwaves commence, considering it is not morally "alive".
----------------------------------------------------
Then killing a braindead person is absolutely fine?
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-03-04 07:44:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Yes!
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-03-04 07:35:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-03-04 03:15:21 (#)
Ranking: 0
GOddamnit this is the heat I wanted for my post.
I guess I needed to word my concepts in a jackassian manner to get that kind of attention.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/61004
----------------------------------
Except for my post, of course. And except I posted after this.
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2005-03-04 06:41:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2005-03-04 03:06:38 (#)
Ranking: 0
Bus, your god is a filthy god. More people have been murdered in the name of Jesus Christ than in any king or country. I hate your religion. Are you happy now? And yes, I see nothing nothing wrong with killing inmates or babies. I am dead serious. I don't care if they're 8 days or 80 years old.
Not all people are liberal or conservative. Some people are filled with other things - ideas. You are not one of them. You are a spokesman for zealotry. Christians are only good for lion food, as far as I'm concerned...
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2005-03-04 03:19:06 (#)
Ranking: -2
I would wipe your people out to the last child...
Christian filth.
_______________________________________________
Thank you. I was dreading getting up this morning, but you have no idea how much you just made my day. I have never before been so convinced that I am on the side of good. If this guy is against me, I must be saying something right.
Have a good day!
-Bus
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2005-03-04 03:19:06 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I would wipe your people out to the last child...
Christian filth.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-03-04 03:15:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
GOddamnit this is the heat I wanted for my post.
I guess I needed to word my concepts in a jackassian manner to get that kind of attention.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/61004
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2005-03-04 03:06:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Bus, your god is a filthy god. More people have been murdered in the name of Jesus Christ than in any king or country. I hate your religion. Are you happy now? And yes, I see nothing nothing wrong with killing inmates or babies. I am dead serious. I don't care if they're 8 days or 80 years old.
Not all people are liberal or conservative. Some people are filled with other things - ideas. You are not one of them. You are a spokesman for zealotry. Christians are only good for lion food, as far as I'm concerned...
Submitted by Wiggles (user info) at 2005-03-04 00:56:52 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Proposition rejected.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-03-04 00:56:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
http://www.ubersite.com/m/61166
+2 for linkwhore
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2005-03-04 00:44:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
AlwaysAnEagle, thank you. It took 85 replies, but at last you have delivered me a constructive opposing point of view.
Your first point was about people feeling no remorse and commiting crimes deserving death. There is a very important Christian concept, which most Christians don't even seem to understand, which you also touched on with your hypocracy comment. That is that all sin in equal and deserving of death. No man is more rightous than any other. We all sin by nature and are all unworthy of God's grace. I would never condemn any group of people because of their beliefs (as if I had the power to do that anyway.) I'm not sure that I, or any other person on earth, should have the authority to say, "Your sin is so great that we are justified in killing you." But I am pretty sure we can say, "You are no longer fit to function in our society, so we must remove you."
When I die, if I stand before God and he lays in front of me all the sins of my life, I don't think there's any way I could face him and explain why I thought I had the right to kill someone else for their sins. Does a killer deserve death? Certainly. But no more than the rest of us. As for "justice," this sounds like a more palatable word for vengence, which is driven by contempt. I would not feel comfortable sentencing someone to death for this reason.
As for Abortion, I didn't mean for that to be discussed at such length, but since it has, I'll let you all know that I agree with AlwaysAnEagle on this. When I said killing babies, I was really referring to efforts to extend the abortion terms into later stages; actually killing babies. First term abortions really don't bother me, as I'm not convinced either that an early stage fetus is a human soul.
As for rehabing a criminal... No, that was not my intention. I never intend for these type of criminals to be reintroduced to society. What is the point then? The point is to create a compromise... a justification for allowing them to live. There is nothing that a true Christian values more than saving souls. Since the Christian community and Republican party seems to support the death penalty (especially in Texas,) they need an appeal of great magnitude to convince them otherwise. If a Christian is to honestly interpret the teachings of Jesus, she will be forced to admit that there is no earthly justification for murder. The hope that killers can still somehow serve God's purpose, even in a life spent in prison, should provide adequate justification for their life.
I'm not sure what opponents of this idea (and the death penalty) want... A life where the criminals are free? Send them to therapy instead of death? Forgive them and put them back into society? No. You just want them to be locked away and rot? If they're going to do that anyway, what's wrong with letting Christianity in? I'm talking about one hour per week on Sundays. We will not kill you, but you have to sit through a sermon for one hour per week. Is that really too much to ask? Are you all really that intolerant?
-Bus
Submitted by Umbilical_Cord (user info) at 2005-03-03 23:40:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
No need for a compromise, speaking as a liberal, I say kill 'em all.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-03-03 22:00:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Hey Liberals, I Propose a Compromise (666 hits)
-----------
We oughta leave it like this....
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-03-03 21:48:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2005-03-03 18:47:13 (#)
Ranking: 0
Now this is the most ignorant thing I've read yet. I'm so sick of people calling God a problem in America. Do you know where "One nation under God" brought us to? The greatest and most powerful nation on earth.
-----------
So....America became the greatest nation on Earth after the 1950's? It took Communism to make America great? Who woulda thunk it?
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2005-03-03 20:45:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Well, I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, I want to -1 or -2 because I find this idea shitty. On the other hand, If I do, I'm apparently succesfully confirming some liberal stereotype you have thought out. So here's a zero.
Submitted by AlwaysAnEagle (user info) at 2005-03-03 20:21:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't have the time or patience to wade through what I am sure is the sniping, arguing, and superciliousness that I assume has gone on below, but here's my take on it.
I feel that some people do deserve to be executed. Some people will never feel remorse, no matter how long they sit in an empty cell. However, I feel that many are sentenced to death without a degree of guilt that demands the death penalty. I feel that cases whose guilty verdicts would carry a death sentence should be tried in a court specializing in the handling of such grave matters, possibly in a grand jury format. I certainly am a proponent of the concept of a jury of one's peers, but special handling would allow absolute certainty in conviction and ensure that we would execute innocent men or women, or those whose crimes do not merit a death sentence. The Penalty has become a chip for the legal negotiations in the system, and as far as I am concerned, that discredits the system that supports the Penalty's application. The legal system has evolved to such a point that it bears revision, as far as I am concerned.
Although you retracted the statement, I would like to address the abortion/death penalty issue. I was ctually just thinking about that the other day, considering how it was that I supported the right to choose and was against the death penalty in most cases. The reason I am not wholly against the death penalty is the same reason I defend abortion. First of all, I believe that ending an established life of an adult is very much different from the abortion of a fetus that would not be able to survive independently outside of the womb. I do not support late-term abortion, but I do support abortions done early and with a full understanding of the consequences, WHICH incidentally, I would like to commend Planned Parenthood for, not just in informing their patients about the ramifications and process of abortion but of ALL their services, from prescription of birth control to gynecological exams. Rock on, Planned Parenthood. (But stop being as obnoxiously hyper-feminist. Just a little. Whee feminism, but....settle.) In any case, it is not an issue of morals. It is an issue of public safety. A good percentage of conservatives would allow for abortion in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the mother. These are the people who will be unable to be helped safely if you outlaw abortion. Abortion has happened for centuries, and people will find a way. Outlawing it guarantees that quality of care and availability of services for women who would qualify under exigent circumstances would be substantially decreased, and also guarantees that women will begin to die as they find back alley abortions in ther desperation. Not everything is moral.
The problem isn't your concept, it's extrapolation.
Extrapolation is what has brought about not only the many protestant religions, but also an entire planet's worth of dissent and argument. I see the Bible as a creation of Man, which uses metaphor, parable and fable to explain what is believed to be the word of God. At some point, it may have been the actual word of God, transcribed by some very patient and bored individual, but since then, its myriad revisions have made it into a tool. I still believe it to be a good book, and one that can provide guidance for someone striving to live a good life. But it is also a tool. Political groups, individuals, and clergy have all extrapolated the text of the Bible to fit their aims and support their views, and this is exactly what happens. The same thing has happened with such secular decrees as Title IX and Affirmative Action initiatives. The text has been used to condemn homosexuals, jews, other religious groups, and endless other groups and individuals. And then when people protest this use of the good book, Christians have no problem turning around and pointing out how the Bible and their religion derived from it is so forgiving and kind and open. It cannot be both ways. Christianity is by no means inherently evil or bad, but it is certainly hypocritical in many ways, and has been made so by its own adherents.
This is the same thing that could happen if your plan were to be put into place. If people must be "forced to attend Christian church," then the parole system, the symbiotic twin of the penal system, would also eventually be forced to incorporate Christian services for the people to keep from violating their parole. This then can translate into religion being inserted into any number of government systems, where it does not belong. I am not anti-Christian, but I don't think it has any active place in the government. Also, if you plan to imprison all these offenders for life, then why bother rehabilitating them at all if they will never need to be returned to society? I am going to assume you were proposing this concept with a goal of returning criminals to society, because it doesn't make sense to force rehabilative treatments on prisoners - or the cost of the treatments and imprisonment on the taxpayers - if they're just going to rot in a cell for their lives.
Also? "If you want Texas to agree to such a proposal, it has to be Christian." Tough shit. If you're talking a national mandate here, which I think you are, tough shit for Texas. There are 49 other states.
I refer you to John Locke for the best last word you can have in this discussion. In his Treatise on Toleration, he talks about the places of religion and government. He promotes the separation of the two. He points out that the state can care for your physical and social well being, and religion can care for your spiritual well being, but the two cannot be combined, largely because religion comes down to faith. The state cannot save your soul, and does not promise to do so...and the church can only save you if you truly believe it can. The state can't dictate how you should believe, because it must care for society with broad strokes, doing the best for the most people in one stroke. The church worries about your immortal soul, not your time on Earth. No man or woman who does not believe in the teachings of their church can expect the salvation promised by its doctrine. And the state cannot promise you eternal salvation, so it governs what it can...and one of those things is the right of every person in society to choose their own path.
Submitted by Thored (user info) at 2005-03-03 19:56:50 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
I propose a fight to the death.
Or a Rap Battle.
MC Hammer would SO win.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-03-03 19:44:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-03-03 19:37:06 (#)
Ranking: 0
Philosophically, i see your point Thorpe. If it's immoral to kill a human, why not a flower?
----------------------------------------------------
That wasn't my point at all. I was saying it is not immoral to kill a flower, because it has no self-awareness. And thus, it is not immoral to kill a foetus before brainwaves commence, considering it is not morally "alive".
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-03-03 19:37:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-03-03 18:44:36 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-03-03 18:08:11 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-03-03 17:51:44 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-03-03 17:49:18 (#)
Ranking: 0
Bullshit, Congo. They're killing babies, no matter what pretty words you use.
------------
Some of us don't believe they are "babies" at 2 weeks... I for one genuinely believe that you can't "muder" someone until they are capable of life without being attached to a living human. For most, that is around 7 months, which is why I am opposed to late-term abortions, unless the mother's life is in danger.
----------------
That's the difference, i suppose. I consider them human when there is a seperate living entity with a human genetic code. Of course, the terms "living", "seperate" and possibly "human" are open to interpretation, and i guess my interpretation of them puts me on the pro-life side.
But i do believe that "abort" is just a pretty word used to sugar and spice it up. You are definately killing something. Whether it's human or not is the only thing open to debate, the way i see it.
But that's just my opinion, and if there was such a thing as "absolute truth" there'd be no need for such disagreements. Alas, there is not.
-------------------
You are definitely "killing" something, true. Just as when you pull up a flower, you are killing something there. The problem is, is that necessarily immoral, given that up to a certain point that fetus is not conscious or self-aware?
http://www.ubersite.com/cgi-bin/message_get.cgi?message=110976513241418572#1181621 <=== My views on abortion. Does that count as a linkwhore, considering it's not my post?
On another note, this was a stupid, stupid post.
--------------------------
Philosophically, i see your point Thorpe. If it's immoral to kill a human, why not a flower?
I can't really answer that. All i know is I think killing anything not human is fine, as long as you do it as pain free as practically possible. However, killing a human is wrong (according to my moral standards) and these feotuses are human (according to my judgment). But philosophically, yeah, you're right.
Submitted by ThineJericho (user info) at 2005-03-03 19:34:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
To balance out one of the -2's, it wasn't a bad post .. stop taking shit to seriously.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-03-03 19:28:30 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
No, you seem to want some finality. I'm up for this.
If you can prove me wrong on any issue, I will adopt your stance on it. It's that simple. But I would expect the same in return.
I know this is never gonna happen, but I'm willing to give it a try.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-03-03 19:23:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
calling your opponents liberals (in a pejorative sense) and then declaring them evil is not a good way to conduct an argument. we obviously see entirely different worlds. i think there is no such thing as good or evil, whereas you consider many things "evil".
accordingly, there is little we can discuss. nor do i wish to prolong this any further.
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2005-03-03 19:15:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-03-03 19:04:28 (#)
Ranking: -2
"And then people talk about their government news channels while calling our news propoganda! We have free press! Liberals, you are all either evil or deceived. Everyone. You cannot honestly know all the facts and still be liberal without being evil. It's that simple. I just don't understand why so many of you gather here."
my earlier suspicion was right. you are the kind of person it it impossible to argue with.
__________________
All I have done is present arguments and waited for counter-arguments. I think you'll find me quite responsive if you have an ounce of reasonable thought to put forth. Good luck with that.
-Bus
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-03-03 19:05:59 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Hey, why did I call Legstitsenarse "she"?
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-03-03 19:05:07 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
She was not necessarily calling Christians intolerant. She was talking about how Republicans use Christianity to gain support for their actions, Christ-like actions or not.
You think non-government organisations can't be biased??? The thing is, with government media outlets, the government does not have direct control over what is shown (at least, not in Australia, it MAY be different in the US though I doubt it). It funds the station, yet it is illegal to attempt to influence what is shown on it.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-03-03 19:04:28 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
"And then people talk about their government news channels while calling our news propoganda! We have free press! Liberals, you are all either evil or deceived. Everyone. You cannot honestly know all the facts and still be liberal without being evil. It's that simple. I just don't understand why so many of you gather here."
my earlier suspicion was right. you are the kind of person it it impossible to argue with.
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2005-03-03 18:47:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by LeggsTitsenarse (user info) at 2005-03-03 18:30:52 (#)
Ranking: -2
Really? "No one" has the "power" to forgive these days?
Aside from that. Your proposition to force Christiananity down convicts throats seems to me like an extension about the worst problem your country has today.
All this "One nation under God" bullshit which has bundled more than half of the population into a neat little package of full of people who whine about sex and violence on TV and videogames but are quick to support a war driven by REVENGE. Hmm, what would of Jesus done?
The Republican party takes avantage of the Christian population by using religous propaganda to ignore all those "tricky political issues" and to vote on doing "whats right for their faith".
______________________
Now this is the most ignorant thing I've read yet. I'm so sick of people calling God a problem in America. Do you know where "One nation under God" brought us to? The greatest and most powerful nation on earth. The founding principles of America were created as close to the teachings of Jesus as they could write on paper without forcing people to be Christians. Our "hateful biggots" and "hypocrites" created a country that allows everyone to do what they want and have a voice while doing it.
I can't stand people calling Christians intolerant. There is no group on earth more tolerant than Christians. We created a country where people can do whatever they want. We don't push "propoganda," we push what is morally right. And just because we tolerate you doesn't mean we have to accept you. We can speak against you. We can disagree and argue with you. This does not make us intolerant.
And then people talk about their government news channels while calling our news propoganda! We have free press! Liberals, you are all either evil or deceived. Everyone. You cannot honestly know all the facts and still be liberal without being evil. It's that simple. I just don't understand why so many of you gather here.
-Bus
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-03-03 18:46:29 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
To tell the truth I find the idea of the commencement of "life" at the point where it can survive separately from another organism just as arbitrary as the commmencement at fertilisation, if not more so.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-03-03 18:44:36 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-03-03 18:08:11 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-03-03 17:51:44 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-03-03 17:49:18 (#)
Ranking: 0
Bullshit, Congo. They're killing babies, no matter what pretty words you use.
------------
Some of us don't believe they are "babies" at 2 weeks... I for one genuinely believe that you can't "muder" someone until they are capable of life without being attached to a living human. For most, that is around 7 months, which is why I am opposed to late-term abortions, unless the mother's life is in danger.
----------------
That's the difference, i suppose. I consider them human when there is a seperate living entity with a human genetic code. Of course, the terms "living", "seperate" and possibly "human" are open to interpretation, and i guess my interpretation of them puts me on the pro-life side.
But i do believe that "abort" is just a pretty word used to sugar and spice it up. You are definately killing something. Whether it's human or not is the only thing open to debate, the way i see it.
But that's just my opinion, and if there was such a thing as "absolute truth" there'd be no need for such disagreements. Alas, there is not.
-------------------
You are definitely "killing" something, true. Just as when you pull up a flower, you are killing something there. The problem is, is that necessarily immoral, given that up to a certain point that fetus is not conscious or self-aware?
http://www.ubersite.com/cgi-bin/message_get.cgi?message=110976513241418572#1181621 <=== My views on abortion. Does that count as a linkwhore, considering it's not my post?
On another note, this was a stupid, stupid post.
Submitted by congo (user info) at 2005-03-03 18:40:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
---
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2005-03-03 18:20:24 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-03-03 18:09:29 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2005-03-03 18:03:58 (#)
Ranking: -2
"Bullshit, Congo. They're killing babies, no matter what pretty words you use."
Then I suppose you are killing millions babies when you shoot your spermfish in your socks?
-----------------------------------------------------------
My spermfish are not a seperate living organism with a new genetic code. They are the same as toenail clippings.
______________________
This amuses me greatly. +2
-Bus
---
Bus, this is the first thing you've said that I wholeheartedly agree with! I'm in tears over here! heh heh heh
Submitted by LeggsTitsenarse (user info) at 2005-03-03 18:30:52 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Really? "No one" has the "power" to forgive these days?
Aside from that. Your proposition to force Christiananity down convicts throats seems to me like an extension about the worst problem your country has today.
All this "One nation under God" bullshit which has bundled more than half of the population into a neat little package of full of people who whine about sex and violence on TV and videogames but are quick to support a war driven by REVENGE. Hmm, what would of Jesus done?
The Republican party takes avantage of the Christian population by using religous propaganda to ignore all those "tricky political issues" and to vote on doing "whats right for their faith".
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2005-03-03 18:28:59 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2005-03-03 18:20:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-03-03 18:09:29 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2005-03-03 18:03:58 (#)
Ranking: -2
"Bullshit, Congo. They're killing babies, no matter what pretty words you use."
Then I suppose you are killing millions babies when you shoot your spermfish in your socks?
-----------------------------------------------------------
My spermfish are not a seperate living organism with a new genetic code. They are the same as toenail clippings.
______________________
This amuses me greatly. +2
-Bus
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-03-03 18:09:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2005-03-03 18:03:58 (#)
Ranking: -2
"Bullshit, Congo. They're killing babies, no matter what pretty words you use."
Then I suppose you are killing millions babies when you shoot your spermfish in your socks?
-----------------------------------------------------------
My spermfish are not a seperate living organism with a new genetic code. They are the same as toenail clippings.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-03-03 18:08:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-03-03 17:51:44 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-03-03 17:49:18 (#)
Ranking: 0
Bullshit, Congo. They're killing babies, no matter what pretty words you use.
------------
Some of us don't believe they are "babies" at 2 weeks... I for one genuinely believe that you can't "muder" someone until they are capable of life without being attached to a living human. For most, that is around 7 months, which is why I am opposed to late-term abortions, unless the mother's life is in danger.
----------------
That's the difference, i suppose. I consider them human when there is a seperate living entity with a human genetic code. Of course, the terms "living", "seperate" and possibly "human" are open to interpretation, and i guess my interpretation of them puts me on the pro-life side.
But i do believe that "abort" is just a pretty word used to sugar and spice it up. You are definately killing something. Whether it's human or not is the only thing open to debate, the way i see it.
But that's just my opinion, and if there was such a thing as "absolute truth" there'd be no need for such disagreements. Alas, there is not.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-03-03 18:07:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
We should probably live up to a higher standard and shoot down the death penalty. That's what we tell people at least, when in reality it is about the bottom line. Life without possibility of parole.
I think we should allow the criminals still determine if they want to die, however and offer them a humane way out.
---------
I really just want to know if I am reading this right.
Life in prison, no parole, but they can decide to be put to death if they so desire?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2005-03-03 18:03:58 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
"Bullshit, Congo. They're killing babies, no matter what pretty words you use."
Then I suppose you are killing millions babies when you shoot your spermfish in your socks?
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2005-03-03 18:02:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
AHhAHAHAHA! Forced education in the prisons?
Most these criminals grow to accept Jesus anyway. I think church service is some kind of time where they can escape the situation they are in if all but for a brief time.
I look at dollars and see that having the taxpayer pay these jerkoff lawyers who file motion after motion (wasting court time and many, many man hours for NOTHING) and think...the death penalty isn't worth it.
We should probably live up to a higher standard and shoot down the death penalty. That's what we tell people at least, when in reality it is about the bottom line. Life without possibility of parole.
I think we should allow the criminals still determine if they want to die, however and offer them a humane way out.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-03-03 17:51:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-03-03 17:49:18 (#)
Ranking: 0
Bullshit, Congo. They're killing babies, no matter what pretty words you use.
------------
Some of us don't believe they are "babies" at 2 weeks... I for one genuinely believe that you can't "muder" someone until they are capable of life without being attached to a living human. For most, that is around 7 months, which is why I am opposed to late-term abortions, unless the mother's life is in danger.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-03-03 17:49:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by congo (user info) at 2005-03-03 15:25:35 (#)
Ranking: -2
>>>
(why they're for saving the lives of murderers but killing babies I'll never understand, but I digress.)
>>>
OK, I'll take the obvious bait.
Nice intentional wording. They are not for "killing babies." They're for "aborting fetuses." Big difference.
-----------------------------------
Bullshit, Congo. They're killing babies, no matter what pretty words you use.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-03-03 17:49:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2005-03-03 16:55:58 (#)
Ranking: 0
At last, a valid point! Deterrence. Are would-be criminals less likely to commit a crime because they could be executed for it? This is a good Pro Death Penalty argument, without the threat of death looming over people, would they be more likely to commit crimes? I don't think so, but either way it doesn't support your anti-death anti-Godly-rehab view. My punishment/rehab would have the same deterrent effect as life in prison without church.
-Bus
-----------
But it costs a lot more. Imagine having to hire priests to counsel all those lifers (3374 or something, according to BLITZKREIG_BOB on one of the other posts). Not to mention the lawsuits from the non-Christians if their convictions are overturned because DNA evidence (or something equally revolutionary, in a legal sense) absolves them of the crime. Once it is overturned, the go vernment has forced them to follow another religion.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-03-03 17:44:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2005-03-03 16:39:01 (#)
Ranking: 0
And please don't talk to me about Constitutional Rights.
----------
Are you saying it's irrelevant? It's absolutely relevant. It is government recognition of one religion over others, and it is expressly forbidden by the 1st ammendment. You pitch the first, there's not much point to having the rest.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-03-03 17:28:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You're missing the point.
The real question is "What Would Carol Richards do?"
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2005-03-03 17:25:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2005-03-03 17:14:09 (#)
Ranking: -1
The stoner comment was exclusionary to your post, hence the 0 on my next review to balance it out. Your hypocrisy comes from the fact that you said you see nothing wrong with toking up on the weekends, yet your show is webcast on Wednesday. Moderation, my ass.
________________________
Wednesday, weekends, whatever. Wednesday and my show IS my weekend. I'm a coach and have to travel to competitions on weekends. I never smoke during the day, before work, around kids, or any other time I have something important to do. It ends up being once or twice a week, no more.
I don't understand why you are so quick to demonize me. Why is everyone so angry at this post? I am trying to do what I think is right. I'm proposing a plan that would save lives and satisfy people from many different perspectives, I don't get it.
-Bus
Submitted by the_lone_stranger (user info) at 2005-03-03 17:22:21 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
using the word "liberal" is just way too fucking general and overdone.
same with "conservatives"
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2005-03-03 17:18:50 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
What do you mean liberals are for killing babies? That is completely insane. I've never met anyone who was for killing a baby, if so they should be locked away for life - jesus fucking christ on a stick.
As for your religious conversion in lieu of the death penalty, what does that solve? What difference does it make whether someone is following some scripted narrow flat earth philosophy if they are locked up for the rest of their lives anyway?
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-03-03 17:14:37 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2005-03-03 16:39:01 (#)
Ranking: 0
And please don't talk to me about Constitutional Rights. Criminals have no rights. They're spending life in prison! Whatever they did in life, whatever religion they thought they were following, it obviously was wrong. They turned to evil and their rights were revoked. We can try to turn them to whatever line of thinking or religion or behavior we want, it is certainly better than killing them. The choice is ultimately up to them, but we'll at least make them hear the message.
-Bus
==================
Shit man, I gave you zeros before because you hadn't proved yourself a zealot. Spare us the morality play bullshit.
Go back to your street corner.
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2005-03-03 17:14:09 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
The stoner comment was exclusionary to your post, hence the 0 on my next review to balance it out. Your hypocrisy comes from the fact that you said you see nothing wrong with toking up on the weekends, yet your show is webcast on Wednesday. Moderation, my ass.
Good luck with this, man. I have to go install and set up a pc at my parents' house.
Submitted by epiphany (user info) at 2005-03-03 17:05:33 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
-2, no need to beat a dead horse
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2005-03-03 17:01:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2005-03-03 16:50:32 (#)
Ranking: -2
-2 for the herbal indulgence reference. Haven't I seen you hitting the bong on your little webcast? Hypocritical, delusionally addicted stoners piss me off to no end. Don't act like you don't hit it every single time it's passed your way. This coming from a fellow toker.
_________________________
How am I being hypocritical? Everything in moderation. How does smoking contradict anything I've asserted?
-Bus
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2005-03-03 17:01:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Death penalty trials cost an average of 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment."
----
That only covers the trials, man, not feeding, housing and clothing them for the rest of their lives. Also, their statistics are compared against ALL non-death sentence cases, not just the lifers. I would like to see a DIRECT comparison between the costs of housing an inmate for the remainder of his life and putting him to death. Sometimes, we tend to forget that they no longer cost us a penny once they're six feet under. x-thousands of dollars per year can in no way be cheaper than $0.00.
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2005-03-03 16:55:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2005-03-03 16:50:29 (#)
Ranking: 0
I would not rather have them executed but I don't think that this is a viable "compromise." It's not like this is an either-or proposition.
Rehabilitation is not the only purpose behind lengthy prison terms. A big part of it is deterrence. Most people don't commit capital crimes because they know that if they do, they will probably end up spending a long time in prison.
_______________________
At last, a valid point! Deterrence. Are would-be criminals less likely to commit a crime because they could be executed for it? This is a good Pro Death Penalty argument, without the threat of death looming over people, would they be more likely to commit crimes? I don't think so, but either way it doesn't support your anti-death anti-Godly-rehab view. My punishment/rehab would have the same deterrent effect as life in prison without church.
-Bus
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2005-03-03 16:51:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7#financial%20facts
Here's one. I'm not spending too much time researching this, because I think it's a pretty well known fact that executions cost more, 48% more by this Tennessee study.
Still, actual financial figures are a little beside the point. I was just taking a more general survey to see if liberals were receptive to the idea that in order to not kill people, would they be willing to make a compromise.
-Bus
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2005-03-03 16:50:32 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
-2 for the herbal indulgence reference. Haven't I seen you hitting the bong on your little webcast? Hypocritical, delusionally addicted stoners piss me off to no end. Don't act like you don't hit it every single time it's passed your way. This coming from a fellow toker.
Shit, I'll give you the heat on this abortion of an idea for a post as long you keep churning out these nuggets of infinite wisdom.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2005-03-03 16:50:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I would not rather have them executed but I don't think that this is a viable "compromise." It's not like this is an either-or proposition.
Rehabilitation is not the only purpose behind lengthy prison terms. A big part of it is deterrence. Most people don't commit capital crimes because they know that if they do, they will probably end up spending a long time in prison.
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2005-03-03 16:41:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2005-03-03 16:37:24 (#)
Ranking: -2
I think its funny how into Jesus and republicanism you are, yet you're a stoner?
____________________
Absolutely man. I'm one of the peace loving ones, I try to do what is right. I try to follow morals and be a good person. I don't think there's anything wrong with a little herbal indulgence on the weekends.
-Bus
Submitted by Auf-Der-Maur (user info) at 2005-03-03 16:41:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Why the hell did the Colonists come to the New World in the first place"
You guys need to look at the WHOLE story. True, some colonists did come over for religion, but just as many came over for profit, like growing tobacco, rice, indigo etc. and for resources. There was a ton of money in the New World back then, and it looked a lot better to many people than living in some shitty overcrowded city
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2005-03-03 16:39:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
And please don't talk to me about Constitutional Rights. Criminals have no rights. They're spending life in prison! Whatever they did in life, whatever religion they thought they were following, it obviously was wrong. They turned to evil and their rights were revoked. We can try to turn them to whatever line of thinking or religion or behavior we want, it is certainly better than killing them. The choice is ultimately up to them, but we'll at least make them hear the message.
-Bus
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2005-03-03 16:38:34 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
"Welcome to our legal system. Appeals, court costs, jurys... it costs a fortune to go through the process of sentencing someone to death."
---------
Most importantly, it also costs a fortune to sentence someone to life in prison. Unless you think that those sentenced for life don't also have appeal after appeal after appeal; which means that court costs, jurys, et al also apply in full. Show me the bottom line, Bus. Show me actual statistics that say it's more expensive to execute someone than shelter and feed them for the remainder of their life. And not stats from some slanted anti-death penalty site, either, or vice versa, for that matter. If you'd really thought this idea through thoroughly, you'd already have those stats at hand.
I feel your idea, man, but you're trying to rape the constitution AND you haven't researched very well. It's one thing to bring forth an idea that has a well-laid plan of action and clear cut methods of bringing it to fruition, but just tossing out an idea pulled from the ass of a stoned pseudo-epiphanic moment is another matter entirely.
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2005-03-03 16:37:24 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I think its funny how into Jesus and republicanism you are, yet you're a stoner?
Brilliant!
Submitted by Wallstreet (user info) at 2005-03-03 16:30:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Haha...
Nice post!! (from a fellow rightwinger)
Submitted by Wiggles (user info) at 2005-03-03 16:27:09 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
f you want Texas to agree to such a proposal, it has to be Christian. Not Muslim, not Buddhism, not Scientology, but Christianity.
------
Good thing you picked the one religion that is correct in its beliefs.
Why don't we make them Taoists?
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2005-03-03 16:20:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Let me ask you this, opponents of this idea.
Those of you against the death penalty, would you rather have them killed? Or would you rather imprison them?
Those of you for the death penalty, if it is more cost effective to keep them alive, and still allow for the possibility that perhaps we don't have the right to execute people, maybe there will be new evidence years down the road that proves their innocence. We're still sentencing them to a horrible punishment of a life of imprisonment... Is this not good enough for you?
-Bus
Submitted by Faithless_Whisper (user info) at 2005-03-03 16:17:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Yeah...bore then to death.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2005-03-03 16:13:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'd just like to point out that in some states, it IS more expensive (on average) to execute someone than to imprison them for life, because of the enormous cost of appeals. Lawyers ain't cheap, even the ones that work for the state.
Not that I'm defending this cockamamie forced-Christianity idea.
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2005-03-03 16:13:01 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Ok, I lied. I messed up "stupendously".
If you're all about change and reform: bring back the firing squad. Bullets can be had for less than a dollar each (REALLY lethal ones, actually). If you can pound religion into their heads for the rest of their lives for cheaper than that, I'll be more open to your idea.
Submitted by congo (user info) at 2005-03-03 16:11:38 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
My apologies.... the number is about 76% of Americans.
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2005-03-03 16:11:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by congo (user info) at 2005-03-03 16:07:00 (#)
Ranking: -2
>>>
By the way Silverwolf, it currently costs more to execute someone than life in prison. The money is already being spent, I just want it spent differently.
>>>
Patently, utterly untrue. Keeping someone in death row for 25 years waiting to be executed may be expensive (very similar to life in prison). Executing them is not costly at all
__________________________
Welcome to our legal system. Appeals, court costs, jurys... it costs a fortune to go through the process of sentencing someone to death.
-Bus
Submitted by congo (user info) at 2005-03-03 16:09:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Ummm... again... sorry to burst your bubble, but Christians are not a majority in the US.
They may be the largest single religious group (I don't know offhand), but it ain't 80%.
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2005-03-03 16:08:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by congo (user info) at 2005-03-03 16:05:29 (#)
Ranking: -2
And how does this idea fare with the 80% of human beings that AREN'T Christian? Why is your viewpoint more important than theirs?
________________________
I'm not talking about 80% of humans, I'm talking about the 80% of Americans that claim to be Christian. This is our country, we can choose to deal with our criminals however we see fit.
-Bus
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2005-03-03 16:08:06 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
"This is my requirement for granting your request."
Who requested this? And since when did you gain even an iota of the power to grant these requests?
Fuck this. No way am I giving this troglodyte any more heat on such a stupedously short-sighted idea.
Out.
Submitted by acrog (user info) at 2005-03-03 16:07:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't want to get in this, but...
"This country is not a "Christian Founded" nation. Get over it and get your goddamn religion out of my fucking government. "
What? That's just plainly inacurate. It was very much founded on Christian ideals.
Why the hell did the Colonists come to the New World in the first place? To practice thier religion, which was Christianity, freely. Not Something mandated by the king.
That is also why I disagree with Bus on the forced Christian Services part. I agree that it would do murderers good to here it. But even in jail you can't impose a religion on someone.
Just because court houses display the Ten Commandment, there are God references on our money, and in the Declaration of Independence...etc, does not mean that the government is forcing you into Christianity. You are free to worship or not worship however you want.
No ones putting you in jail or fining you because you don't like Jesus.
Submitted by congo (user info) at 2005-03-03 16:07:00 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
>>>
By the way Silverwolf, it currently costs more to execute someone than life in prison. The money is already being spent, I just want it spent differently.
>>>
Patently, utterly untrue. Keeping someone in death row for 25 years waiting to be executed may be expensive (very similar to life in prison). Executing them is not costly at all.
Submitted by Auf-Der-Maur (user info) at 2005-03-03 16:06:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
" I am willing to pay for criminals to live out their lives in prison"
Its actually cheaper to keep somebody imprisoned for life than it is to get them executed, if thats what you meant by that
Submitted by congo (user info) at 2005-03-03 16:05:29 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
And how does this idea fare with the 80% of human beings that AREN'T Christian? Why is your viewpoint more important than theirs?
(I'm a Roman Catholic by the way - I even play piano at a university chapel for masses, but I just can't see any justification for this idea, no matter how hard I squint).
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2005-03-03 16:05:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
By the way Silverwolf, it currently costs more to execute someone than life in prison. The money is already being spent, I just want it spent differently.
-Bus
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2005-03-03 16:05:18 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
"Christians believe in a purpose on earth other than acquiring worldly things. The Bible teaches forgiveness,"
How come americans consume more per habitants than anywhere else? And why are they one of the few country to have the death penalty?
Religion makes Man do everything contrary to the "word of God".
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2005-03-03 16:02:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'll tell you why I believe this is good.
Christians believe in a purpose on earth other than acquiring worldly things. The Bible teaches forgiveness, and that the only thing that matters is loving God. If we execute murderers, we are taking it into our own hands to deny them any more chances of accomplishing this life goal. By forcing them to hear the word of God, we are at least giving them another chance to serve a good purpose in life.
Obviously I don't think this will effect society. I want these people put away for the rest of their lives. I'm not thinking this will turn them into good people in society. But I do think it will give them another chance to come to God. This is something I am willing to spend money on. I am not willing to spend money just to have them forever incarcerated to just rot and die.
It doesn't really matter if you see things this way or not though. I think any good Christian would. The rest of you think I'm nuts. Fine. But you're still getting what you want, which is no death penalty. This is my requirement for granting your request.
-Bus
Submitted by congo (user info) at 2005-03-03 15:59:32 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
And on top of it....
You've come up with what is basically a horrible solution that pisses all over the Constitution, and have done nothing but reiterate that horrible solution with your replies, and then claim to have predicted that people at Ubersite would belittle it.
Whoa! Slow down there, Nostradamus. Can you tell me what the next Powerball numbers are, too?
And what if you lose these incredible powers?
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-03-03 15:58:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
A better compromise:
Let Christianity into prisons, take Creationism out of the classrooms.
Intelligent Design too.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2005-03-03 15:57:54 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2005-03-03 15:31:57 (#)
Ranking: -1
Most convicts find religion behind bars anyway.
Who is Wes? Is he a sock puppet?
_____
I do believe that he is the peener that goes IN the sock puppet...
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2005-03-03 15:57:49 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Intelligence. Hmmm...
How about this for intelligence, dick-chin (I apologize, that was a cheap shot and I retract it): Do you plan to pay for this phenomenally expensive idea with your own money? I'd rather stick the needle in their arm or flip the switch myself than shell out my hard-earned money trying to religiously reform rapists and murderers. Am I saying that even the dregs of civilization don't deserve salvation? No. You seem to forget that most people are told all their lives that murder is wrong. What makes you think telling them for the rest of their life that they're going to hell unless they repent is going to make a bit of difference? All I'm saying is that your idea wasn't terribly well thought-out in the least bit. It would just cost you and I a lot more money than the penal system currently does.
I'm a moderate conservative, btw.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-03-03 15:56:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
So in return, we get to take out the 2nd?
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-03-03 15:56:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Or another answer for you:
Sure, let's gut the Constitution. You know, once we make it law that they attend Christian services, we've thrown out the 1st ammendment.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-03-03 15:53:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
How about we let you keep killing criminals and we'll keep killing babies? That work for you?
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2005-03-03 15:51:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You may not agree. You may think we don't need more religion. But that is the nature of compromise. You get a little of what you want, no death penalty. Republicans get a little of what they want, a more Godly rehab in prisons. Why are you so negative about this?
-Bus
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-03-03 15:51:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
How about you provide some kind of justification for this idea?
I see no point in forcing convicts to attend church services, unless you assume that will somehow make them "better people." Which I do not agree with.
People are ridiculing the suggestion because it is just a bald statement which appears to make no rational sense. Expand, please.
And no-one has called you any names.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2005-03-03 15:51:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
You can't force someone to get religion. That's totally antithetical to the idea behind Christianity. You have to choose to be a Christian. The state can't mandate it. And besides that, mandatory state-sanctioned religious services in prison would be unconstitutional.
Submitted by screamfeeder (user info) at 2005-03-03 15:51:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You want an intelligent argument?
That is so hard because frankly you propose a ridiculous idea!
Fine.
Your idea sounds great.
Just make sure that churches are no longer tax exempt, pedophile priests get put in jail, "Faith-Based" initiatives get thrown out the window, no prayer in school (ever), and we take "God" off my money and out of my pledge to my country.
You don't like that?
Why not?
Nice one "predicting the liberal response". See, I predicted that some Right-wing fundamentalist would post this sooner or later, so who is predicting who now?
This country is not a "Christian Founded" nation. Get over it and get your goddamn religion out of my fucking government.
Fuck I'm hungover.
Submitted by jayjonze (user info) at 2005-03-03 15:44:24 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
This is fucking stupid
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2005-03-03 15:44:03 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
we don't need more religion
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2005-03-03 15:43:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm not looking for a fight, and I was referring more to the mockery made of the suggestion, like I don't know what I'm talking about.
What I have actually done is accurately predicted the liberal response.
I don't really want a fight, I just want to hear an argument why this proposal is not acceptable to you. Maybe some will see it as punishment, okay, I don't see it that way. Either way, it should be an adequate sentence as opposed to the death penalty. If the entire republican party supported this idea, would you back it too?
-Bus
Submitted by congo (user info) at 2005-03-03 15:39:54 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I don't see any name-calling down below, unless you wanna count "the devout type."
Sounds like you WANT a fight. Am I wrong?
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2005-03-03 15:38:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
This is what I expected, laughing and name calling.
But I have yet to hear an intelligent response.
And sorry about the baby killing, that was a cheap shot and I retract it. It's not the issue on hand.
-Bus
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2005-03-03 15:31:57 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Most convicts find religion behind bars anyway.
Who is Wes? Is he a sock puppet?
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2005-03-03 15:30:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
This IS a joke, right?
Submitted by Tom (user info) at 2005-03-03 15:30:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Here's my take on all this shit.
A) I'm not a Jesus fanatic
B) I'm not on death rowe
C) I'm not a woman, and not having babies in me aborted.
There you have it.
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2005-03-03 15:29:52 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Stick to sports, bus. You'll look somewhat more intelligent.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-03-03 15:29:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Congo beat me to one argument, so here is another:
Why the church services? I would view them as punishment, but I suspect you do not.
I'm not going to argue with you because you seem like a devout type, and I genuinely do not understand people like that.
Submitted by congo (user info) at 2005-03-03 15:25:35 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
>>>
(why they're for saving the lives of murderers but killing babies I'll never understand, but I digress.)
>>>
OK, I'll take the obvious bait.
Nice intentional wording. They are not for "killing babies." They're for "aborting fetuses." Big difference.