Good Riddance to Bad Fundy Rubbish
quibbler
_on_re_us/abortion_execution
Man Who Killed Abortion Doctor Executed
By RON WORD, Associated Press Writer
STARKE, Fla. - Still defiant even as he was strapped to a gurney, a
former minister who said he murdered an abortion doctor and his bodyguard
to save the lives of unborn babies was executed Wednesday by injection.
He was the first person put to death in the United States for anti-
abortion violence....
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess even theocrat georgie and his high priest ashcroft couldn't trump
up some reason to stay the execution. Now paul hill is part of a dirt
hill in some cemetery. The world is certainly a better place for his
passing and he shall not be missed.
--
_____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
JTEM
"quibbler" <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote
> I guess even theocrat georgie and his high priest ashcroft couldn't trump
> up some reason to stay the execution.
Why would they?
The guy was a hero to them and he wanted to die.
The murderer got what he wanted.
johac
quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20030904/ap
> _on_re_us/abortion_execution
>
> Man Who Killed Abortion Doctor Executed
>
> By RON WORD, Associated Press Writer
>
> STARKE, Fla. - Still defiant even as he was strapped to a gurney, a
> former minister who said he murdered an abortion doctor and his bodyguard
> to save the lives of unborn babies was executed Wednesday by injection.
> He was the first person put to death in the United States for anti-
> abortion violence....
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I guess even theocrat georgie and his high priest ashcroft couldn't trump
> up some reason to stay the execution. Now paul hill is part of a dirt
> hill in some cemetery. The world is certainly a better place for his
> passing and he shall not be missed.
I'm not shedding any tears.
From the article:
"I expect a great reward in heaven," he said in an interview Tuesday,
during which he was cheerful, often smiling. "I am looking forward to
glory."
Doesn't this sound like the language of the Muslim extremist suicide
bombers? The Muslim martyrs are supposed to get 72 virgins in their
Paradise. What was Hill expecting? It doesn't matter. They both got
the same thing. They are just dead.
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
Pierre Laplace, when asked by Napoleon on why he made
no mention of a god in his book on astronomy: "Sire,
I have no need of that hypothesis."
maff
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20030904/ap_on_re_us/abortion_execution
>
> Man Who Killed Abortion Doctor Executed
>
> By RON WORD, Associated Press Writer
>
> STARKE, Fla. - Still defiant even as he was strapped to a gurney, a
> former minister who said he murdered an abortion doctor and his bodyguard
> to save the lives of unborn babies was executed Wednesday by injection.
> He was the first person put to death in the United States for anti-
> abortion violence....
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I guess even theocrat georgie and his high priest ashcroft couldn't trump
> up some reason to stay the execution. Now paul hill is part of a dirt
> hill in some cemetery. The world is certainly a better place for his
> passing and he shall not be missed.
Brainfried Sysadmin
> "I expect a great reward in heaven," he said in an interview Tuesday,
> during which he was cheerful, often smiling. "I am looking forward to
> glory."
I'm normally against the death penalty for practical reasons. It's not
that I don't think people should be put to death for killing someone, it's
just that court make mistakes and puts innocent people to death
(no way to undo that and make amends) and it often costs more to put
someone to death (legal process costs and all) than it does to literally
lock them up for life.
But in this case, this idiot got what he wanted. I am astounded that if
someone claimed that they were doing it in the name of Santa Claus that
they would be ruled insane and sent for treatment, but in the name of gawd
they are viewed as sane. Doing otherwise would threaten the foundation
of religion.
As I continue on as an atheist, I am both happier and more sad.
I am happy that life for me has become much more clearer. A huge amount
of confusion in life is caused by religious beliefs.
I am more sad as I see just how stupid people can be in the name of gawd.
Gregory Gadow
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20030904/ap
> _on_re_us/abortion_execution
>
> Man Who Killed Abortion Doctor Executed
>
> By RON WORD, Associated Press Writer
>
> STARKE, Fla. - Still defiant even as he was strapped to a gurney, a
> former minister who said he murdered an abortion doctor and his bodyguard
> to save the lives of unborn babies was executed Wednesday by injection.
> He was the first person put to death in the United States for anti-
> abortion violence....
How does killing people who kill people prove that killing people is wrong?
Putting aside the question of whether or not a fetus is a "person", the state
of Florida is only validating Hill's methods.
--
Gregory Gadow
tech...@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
Is your faith so weak and your god so powerless
that, without government endorsement of your
religion, all hell will break loose?
quibbler
>
> "quibbler" <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > I guess even theocrat georgie and his high priest ashcroft couldn't trump
> > up some reason to stay the execution.
>
> Why would they?
>
> The guy was a hero to them and he wanted to die.
He lyingly claims that he wanted to die. But I bet if someone gave him
the real prospect of going free that he would have taken it. He didn't
file any special appeals, but then there really wasn't much basis for him
to appeal.
> The murderer got what he wanted.
He was more or less resigned to his fate. I don't believe his bullshit
about getting to heaven quicker. If that were the case then he would
have shot it out with the police instead of allowing himself to be
captured and tried to begin with.
quibbler
> quibbler wrote:
>
> > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20030904/ap
> > _on_re_us/abortion_execution
> >
> > Man Who Killed Abortion Doctor Executed
> >
> > By RON WORD, Associated Press Writer
> >
> > STARKE, Fla. - Still defiant even as he was strapped to a gurney, a
> > former minister who said he murdered an abortion doctor and his bodyguard
> > to save the lives of unborn babies was executed Wednesday by injection.
> > He was the first person put to death in the United States for anti-
> > abortion violence....
>
> How does killing people who kill people prove that killing people is wrong?
The standards that I apply are
(1) Is there any doubt that the person committed the capital crimes, such
as murder?
(2) Is there any real prospect of rehabilitating the person so that he
will no longer be a danger to society?
(3) Is there any way that he could have paid his debt to society with a
life sentence rather than a death sentence?
In the first two cases I think the answer is no. There was no doubt that
he killed two people who were better human beings than himself. By doing
so he gravely harmed society. His extreme fanaticism further made it
next to impossible to believe that he would actually cease to behave in
the same fashion if he ever managed to get out of prison. On the final
question I'm not positive whether it would have been possible for Hill to
be made to pay his debt to society. The fact that he was unrepentant
means that he probably would have resisted any effort to perform
meaningful restitution. So I'm guessing that the third answer is "no"
as well. I think in those cases, society is simply defending themselves,
rather than merely taking vengeance.
The problem that I have with the death penalty come into play when some
combination of these three factors could be answered in the affirmative.
> Putting aside the question of whether or not a fetus is a "person", the state
> of Florida is only validating Hill's methods.
Well, they may use the same means, but they have a different reason and
a different end in mind. Hill arbitrarily appointed himself the role of
summarily executing anyone whom he decided, on the basis of very sketchy
evidence, might harm the unborn. He followed no due process and there
was no opportunity for appeal. He not only wantonly killed the doctor,
but the guy escorting him, meting out death for two very disparate types
of activities. Florida is applying a due process in order to kill. They
would not have sentenced Hill's victims to death because they had
violated no laws which would merit such a thing. They only sentenced a
person like Hill after he intentionally crossed a very well defined line
in the law.
Elroy Willis
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20030904/ap
> _on_re_us/abortion_execution
> Man Who Killed Abortion Doctor Executed
> By RON WORD, Associated Press Writer
> STARKE, Fla. - Still defiant even as he was strapped to a gurney, a
> former minister who said he murdered an abortion doctor and his bodyguard
> to save the lives of unborn babies was executed Wednesday by injection.
> He was the first person put to death in the United States for anti-
> abortion violence....
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> I guess even theocrat georgie and his high priest ashcroft couldn't trump
> up some reason to stay the execution. Now paul hill is part of a dirt
> hill in some cemetery. The world is certainly a better place for his
> passing and he shall not be missed.
He'll pop up out of his grave when the messiah comes back, you can
count on that!
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
quibbler
jha...@remove.ixpres.com says...
> In article <MPG.19c06b0d5...@news.cis.dfn.de>,
> quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20030904/ap
> > _on_re_us/abortion_execution
> >
> > Man Who Killed Abortion Doctor Executed
> >
> > By RON WORD, Associated Press Writer
> >
> > STARKE, Fla. - Still defiant even as he was strapped to a gurney, a
> > former minister who said he murdered an abortion doctor and his bodyguard
> > to save the lives of unborn babies was executed Wednesday by injection.
> > He was the first person put to death in the United States for anti-
> > abortion violence....
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I guess even theocrat georgie and his high priest ashcroft couldn't trump
> > up some reason to stay the execution. Now paul hill is part of a dirt
> > hill in some cemetery. The world is certainly a better place for his
> > passing and he shall not be missed.
>
> I'm not shedding any tears.
My eyes are as dry as desert for this guy.
>
> From the article:
>
> "I expect a great reward in heaven," he said in an interview Tuesday,
> during which he was cheerful, often smiling. "I am looking forward to
> glory."
We look forward to the glorious moment that he is removed from society
permanently.
> Doesn't this sound like the language of the Muslim extremist suicide
> bombers? The Muslim martyrs are supposed to get 72 virgins in their
> Paradise. What was Hill expecting? It doesn't matter. They both got
> the same thing. They are just dead.
Hill knows that teachings in the new testament condemn his behavior. He
certainly can't be honestly expecting a reward. He may have been
dishonest and delusional enough to ignore that, but as you say, it
doesn't matter, since he's gone now.
Elroy Willis
> jay...@yahoo.com says...
>> quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> I guess even theocrat georgie and his high priest ashcroft couldn't trump
>>> up some reason to stay the execution.
>> Why would they?
>> The guy was a hero to them and he wanted to die.
> He lyingly claims that he wanted to die. But I bet if someone gave him
> the real prospect of going free that he would have taken it. He didn't
> file any special appeals, but then there really wasn't much basis for him
> to appeal.
I guess we should consider ourselves lucky that people like him don't
strap bombs on themselves, walk into abortion clinics, and blow
themselves up, killing and injuring a lot more people than he did.
Thank God <cough> he was smart enough to use a gun instead of a
bomb which might have killed dozens of people.
Maybe God talked him out of the bomb idea, and convinced him to
use a gun?
>> The murderer got what he wanted.
> He was more or less resigned to his fate. I don't believe his bullshit
> about getting to heaven quicker. If that were the case then he would
> have shot it out with the police instead of allowing himself to be
> captured and tried to begin with.
Perhaps just killing the killer before he can be killed by other
killers is the answer.
Fred Stone
> quibbler wrote:
>
>
>>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20030904/ap
>>_on_re_us/abortion_execution
>>
>>Man Who Killed Abortion Doctor Executed
>>
>>By RON WORD, Associated Press Writer
>>
>>STARKE, Fla. - Still defiant even as he was strapped to a gurney, a
>>former minister who said he murdered an abortion doctor and his bodyguard
>>to save the lives of unborn babies was executed Wednesday by injection.
>>He was the first person put to death in the United States for anti-
>>abortion violence....
>
>
> How does killing people who kill people prove that killing people is wrong?
> Putting aside the question of whether or not a fetus is a "person", the state
> of Florida is only validating Hill's methods
"We the People" have delegated the right to the use of force to the
State, including the right to execute murderers after due process. The
State of Florida gave Paul Hill all the benefit of due process; which he
most certainly did not afford to his victims.
--
Fred Stone
Conquering the Galaxy since 2003
Elroy Willis
> quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I guess even theocrat georgie and his high priest ashcroft couldn't trump
>> up some reason to stay the execution. Now paul hill is part of a dirt
>> hill in some cemetery. The world is certainly a better place for his
>> passing and he shall not be missed.
> I'm not shedding any tears.
> From the article:
> "I expect a great reward in heaven," he said in an interview Tuesday,
> during which he was cheerful, often smiling. "I am looking forward to
> glory."
I'm pretty sure he believed that the person he murdered would go
straight to hell after he killed them, don't you think?
> Doesn't this sound like the language of the Muslim extremist suicide
> bombers?
Pretty close, imo. I made the same comparison in a recent post of
mine.
> The Muslim martyrs are supposed to get 72 virgins in their Paradise.
And Hill will be praised by his god for murdering what he considered
to be a baby killer or baby murderer.
> What was Hill expecting? It doesn't matter. They both got
> the same thing. They are just dead.
It's the idea of some afterlife which people convince themselves that
they'll be rewarded in, or others punished in, that is a thorn in the
side of a truly civilized society, and I've been singing that tune for
years, but not many people agree with me for some reason.
If everyone believed that there's no afterlife, I can't help but think
that things would be a bit more peaceful here on earth. We'd still
have crime and psychos out there, but the ideas of people being
rewarded in some heaven for killing other people would surely go away,
wouldn't it?
Elroy Willis
> As I continue on as an atheist, I am both happier and more sad.
Surely, that's also the case for theists, isn't it?
Born Again Atheist
> On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 22:20:51 -0700, johac wrote:
>
> > "I expect a great reward in heaven," he said in an interview Tuesday,
> > during which he was cheerful, often smiling. "I am looking forward to
> > glory."
>
> I'm normally against the death penalty for practical reasons. It's not
> that I don't think people should be put to death for killing someone, it's
> just that court make mistakes and puts innocent people to death
> (no way to undo that and make amends) and it often costs more to put
> someone to death (legal process costs and all) than it does to literally
> lock them up for life.
I hear this claim quote often. Here is a nice cost breakdown which
UNFORTUNATELY supports your claim. : ) Something should be done to
lower costs of capital punishment trials. It should not exceed the
cost of life imprisonment.
duke32
wrote:
>STARKE, Fla. - Still defiant even as he was strapped to a gurney, a
>former minister who said he murdered an abortion doctor and his bodyguard
>to save the lives of unborn babies was executed Wednesday by injection.
>He was the first person put to death in the United States for anti-
>abortion violence....
>I guess even theocrat georgie and his high priest ashcroft couldn't trump
>up some reason to stay the execution. Now paul hill is part of a dirt
>hill in some cemetery. The world is certainly a better place for his
>passing and he shall not be missed.
Hey, quib, didn't you know that it is us conservatives that stand
opposed to taking life, both prebirth and postbirth. It's you 'rats
that are the big supporters of abortion - the butchering of the human
unborn for one's own comfort and convenience.
duke, American-American
*****
2Cor 5:10 - For we must all appear before the
judgment seat of Christ, that each one may
receive what is due him for the things done
while in the body, whether good or bad.
*****
Elroy Willis
>>> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20030904/ap
>>> _on_re_us/abortion_execution
But he prevented the possible murder of who knows how many
lives of unborn babies!
Gregory Gadow
Thanks for the link, although I believe (pesky word for an atheist, sorry) that you draw the wrong
conclusion, and that it would be better to eliminate capital punishment altogether.
Gregory Gadow
Exactly my point.
Gregory Gadow
> Gregory Gadow wrote:
> > quibbler wrote:
> >
> >
> >>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20030904/ap
> >>_on_re_us/abortion_execution
> >>
> >>Man Who Killed Abortion Doctor Executed
> >>
> >>By RON WORD, Associated Press Writer
> >>
> >>STARKE, Fla. - Still defiant even as he was strapped to a gurney, a
> >>former minister who said he murdered an abortion doctor and his bodyguard
> >>to save the lives of unborn babies was executed Wednesday by injection.
> >>He was the first person put to death in the United States for anti-
> >>abortion violence....
> >
> >
> > How does killing people who kill people prove that killing people is wrong?
> > Putting aside the question of whether or not a fetus is a "person", the state
> > of Florida is only validating Hill's methods
>
> "We the People" have delegated the right to the use of force to the
> State, including the right to execute murderers after due process.
I have not. I object to being put in a position where the State orders me to have
the blood of murder on my hands, and I use every legal means at my disposal to
prevent it from happening.
> The
> State of Florida gave Paul Hill all the benefit of due process; which he
> most certainly did not afford to his victims.
The matter is not "due process"; American citizens of Japanese descent were put in
concentration camps by the United States with "due process", and "due process" once
required that black people be returned to their owners, who had every right to kill
them in cold blood for having run away.
The matter is whether or not the ends of that due process is ethical.
Gregory Gadow
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 22:18:42 -0600, quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >STARKE, Fla. - Still defiant even as he was strapped to a gurney, a
> >former minister who said he murdered an abortion doctor and his bodyguard
> >to save the lives of unborn babies was executed Wednesday by injection.
> >He was the first person put to death in the United States for anti-
> >abortion violence....
>
> >I guess even theocrat georgie and his high priest ashcroft couldn't trump
> >up some reason to stay the execution. Now paul hill is part of a dirt
> >hill in some cemetery. The world is certainly a better place for his
> >passing and he shall not be missed.
>
> Hey, quib, didn't you know that it is us conservatives that stand
> opposed to taking life, both prebirth and postbirth.
"You conservatives" are only too happy to scream for people to be murdered by
the state when it suits your purposes, and are delighted to see the US invade
other countries and kill the inhabitants thereof who object.
> It's you 'rats
> that are the big supporters of abortion - the butchering of the human
> unborn for one's own comfort and convenience.
It comes down to a difference of opinion over when "personhood" begins and
what point a pregnant woman becomes a mere incubator.
Robibnikoff
snippage
>
>If everyone believed that there's no afterlife, I can't help but think
>that things would be a bit more peaceful here on earth. We'd still
>have crime and psychos out there, but the ideas of people being
>rewarded in some heaven for killing other people would surely go away,
>wouldn't it?
Well, perhaps that would - however, there are quite a few theists out there that
behave themselves and DON'T kill people only because they believe they'll be
punished in the afterlife. You know, those idiots that assume atheists have no
morals because we don't believe in hell?
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
ric...@nospam.edu
> _on_re_us/abortion_execution
>
> Man Who Killed Abortion Doctor Executed
>
> By RON WORD, Associated Press Writer
>
> STARKE, Fla. - Still defiant even as he was strapped to a gurney, a
> former minister who said he murdered an abortion doctor and his bodyguard
> to save the lives of unborn babies was executed Wednesday by injection.
> He was the first person put to death in the United States for anti-
> abortion violence....
>
Did it strike anyone else as being odd that this piece of shit
was allowed to have a press conference before he was executed?
Richard
Gregory Gadow
It was entirely unprecedented, but entirely expected. After all, we have a
radical fundamentalist Christian being put to death for acting upon his radical
fundametalist Christianity, and the state of Florida.
Brian E. Clark
> The world is certainly a better place for his
> passing and he shall not be missed.
Admittedly, it's hard to muster any compassion for Hill.
Still, your comment sounds uncomfortably similar to Hill's own
sentiments about the abortion doctor he gunned down.
Y'know it's lucky for Hill that there ISN'T a Judgement Day. Imagine the
baffled look on the face of Jesus's as he reviews Hill's life: "You did
*what*? And you said *I* told you to do it?"
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Brian E. Clark
> We'd still
> have crime and psychos out there, but the ideas of people being
> rewarded in some heaven for killing other people would surely go away,
> wouldn't it?
I doubt it. The specific carrot and stick of heaven and hell would be
removed, yes, but paradisiacal prophets would still promise peace and
glory and offer the means to obtain them. (Think of the "marching toward
the Promised Land" quality of the predictions of Marxism and global
corporate capitalism.)
And as always, punishment, slaughter and systemic inequality will be
"temporary" means required to achieve Utopia.
Brian E. Clark
> I don't believe his bullshit
> about getting to heaven quicker. If that were the case then he would
> have shot it out with the police instead of allowing himself to be
> captured and tried to begin with.
With all due respect, quibbler, it sounds like you're hell-bent on
turning Hill into an all around demon. Perhaps Hill didn't engage the
police in a gunfight because he thought it would be wrong to shoot a
cop. Perhaps he hadn't even resolved to face death yet. Who knows?
jwk
> quibbler wrote:
>
> > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20030904/ap
> > _on_re_us/abortion_execution
> >
> > Man Who Killed Abortion Doctor Executed
> >
> > By RON WORD, Associated Press Writer
> >
> > STARKE, Fla. - Still defiant even as he was strapped to a gurney, a
> > former minister who said he murdered an abortion doctor and his bodyguard
> > to save the lives of unborn babies was executed Wednesday by injection.
> > He was the first person put to death in the United States for anti-
> > abortion violence....
>
> How does killing people who kill people prove that killing people is wrong?
> Putting aside the question of whether or not a fetus is a "person", the state
> of Florida is only validating Hill's methods.
Too bad Hill didn't think this way. He killed two men because he
thought/claimed that one of them was a killer. His reasoning is
certainly suspect. Not so Florida.
The state of Florida may or may not have been wrong to impose the
death penalty, but their methods were certainly a lot better than
Hill's. Hill appointed himself judge, jury and executioner. He used
his own desires to judge by, not law or reason. He killed an innocent
man (besides the doctor) just because he was there. Etcetera. You
can harldly equate Florida's handling of him with his treatment of his
victims.
jwk
BAAWA
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis says...
>> If everyone believed that there's no afterlife, I can't help but think
>> that things would be a bit more peaceful here on earth. We'd still
>> have crime and psychos out there, but the ideas of people being
>> rewarded in some heaven for killing other people would surely go away,
>> wouldn't it?
> Well, perhaps that would - however, there are quite a few theists out there
> that behave themselves and DON'T kill people only because they believe
> they'll be punished in the afterlife.
Last statistic I saw showed that of the people who believe in hell,
only something like 5% of them think they're going there themselves.
As scary as the hell idea is to many people, I'm not really sure it's
that much of a deterrent, especially in light of the idea that Jesus
can save you from hell while you're on your deathbed, even if you
murdered a hundred innocent people in your life.
> You know, those idiots that assume atheists have no
> morals because we don't believe in hell?
I guess they don't stop to consider that we have to obey the laws
of the societies we live in. They must consider those laws as coming
from their god or something, and if they were to give up their god,
then they think they'd be free to do whatever they wanted to do,
regardless of any laws of the society they live in. That's my guess
anyway.
quibbler
re...@newsgroup.only.please says...
> quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't believe his bullshit
> > about getting to heaven quicker. If that were the case then he would
> > have shot it out with the police instead of allowing himself to be
> > captured and tried to begin with.
>
> With all due respect, quibbler, it sounds like you're hell-bent on
> turning Hill into an all around demon.
That's not exactly my intent. Here, I'm mainly just questioning his
claim that he really wants to die to get to heaven asap. I bet that if
the governor had offered to write him a pardon that he would have
accepted it and the "getting to heaven quicker" bullshit would have
evaporated like so much hot air that religious hypocrites normally spew.
> Perhaps Hill didn't engage the
> police in a gunfight because he thought it would be wrong to shoot a
> cop. Perhaps he hadn't even resolved to face death yet. Who knows?
Granted, that is just one of many possible scenarios. But if Hill
thought that he was justified in killing the abortion doctor's escort who
was only tangentially related to the process of abortion itself, he could
have just as easily rationalized killing cops to prevent them from
arresting him and not being able to kill more doctors, etc. There is
always some rationalization that can be made and Hill doesn't sound like
he's a very deep thinker. If he had thought about the subject in any
depth then he would realize that even the book o' blood doesn't say that
you can kill anyone you want because you think your religion says it's
ok.
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis wrote:
>> Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>>> Gregory Gadow wrote:
>>>> quibbler wrote:
>>>>> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20030904/ap
>>>>> _on_re_us/abortion_execution
>>>>> Man Who Killed Abortion Doctor Executed
>>>>> By RON WORD, Associated Press Writer
>>>>> STARKE, Fla. - Still defiant even as he was strapped to a gurney, a
>>>>> former minister who said he murdered an abortion doctor and his bodyguard
>>>>> to save the lives of unborn babies was executed Wednesday by injection.
>>>>> He was the first person put to death in the United States for anti-
>>>>> abortion violence....
>>>> How does killing people who kill people prove that killing people is wrong?
>>>> Putting aside the question of whether or not a fetus is a "person", the state
>>>> of Florida is only validating Hill's methods
>>> "We the People" have delegated the right to the use of force to the
>>> State, including the right to execute murderers after due process. The
>>> State of Florida gave Paul Hill all the benefit of due process; which he
>>> most certainly did not afford to his victims.
>> But he prevented the possible murder of who knows how many
>> lives of unborn babies!
> Exactly my point.
And another doctor comes in to take his place, no difference really
made in the big picture of things.
Same thing with illegal drugs. Kill the drug pusher and one just
comes along to take their place...
There's a worldwide demand for abortions, and people killing abortion
clinic doctors just doesn't accomplish anything at all. Making
alcohol illegal didn't stop people from making booze and selling it
to other people either. The Paul Hills of the world are fighting a
losing battle. They should be handing out condoms and encouraging
sex education, but they'd rather kill doctors who perform abortions.
<sigh>
Robibnikoff
>
>Robibnikoff <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>
>> Elroy Willis says...
>
>>> If everyone believed that there's no afterlife, I can't help but think
>>> that things would be a bit more peaceful here on earth. We'd still
>>> have crime and psychos out there, but the ideas of people being
>>> rewarded in some heaven for killing other people would surely go away,
>>> wouldn't it?
>
>> Well, perhaps that would - however, there are quite a few theists out there
>> that behave themselves and DON'T kill people only because they believe
>> they'll be punished in the afterlife.
>
>Last statistic I saw showed that of the people who believe in hell,
>only something like 5% of them think they're going there themselves.
>As scary as the hell idea is to many people, I'm not really sure it's
>that much of a deterrent, especially in light of the idea that Jesus
>can save you from hell while you're on your deathbed, even if you
>murdered a hundred innocent people in your life.
Hmmmmm, good point - blargh :P
>> You know, those idiots that assume atheists have no
>> morals because we don't believe in hell?
>
>I guess they don't stop to consider that we have to obey the laws
>of the societies we live in.
I've seen comments from some that they don't understand why we do because we
have no fear of "final retribution". Idiots.
They must consider those laws as coming
>from their god or something, and if they were to give up their god,
>then they think they'd be free to do whatever they wanted to do,
>regardless of any laws of the society they live in. That's my guess
>anyway.
And, sadly, I agree :(
Fred Stone
> Fred Stone wrote:
>
>
>>Gregory Gadow wrote:
>>
>>>quibbler wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20030904/ap
>>>>_on_re_us/abortion_execution
>>>>
>>>>Man Who Killed Abortion Doctor Executed
>>>>
>>>>By RON WORD, Associated Press Writer
>>>>
>>>>STARKE, Fla. - Still defiant even as he was strapped to a gurney, a
>>>>former minister who said he murdered an abortion doctor and his bodyguard
>>>>to save the lives of unborn babies was executed Wednesday by injection.
>>>>He was the first person put to death in the United States for anti-
>>>>abortion violence....
>>>
>>>
>>>How does killing people who kill people prove that killing people is wrong?
>>>Putting aside the question of whether or not a fetus is a "person", the state
>>>of Florida is only validating Hill's methods
>>
>>"We the People" have delegated the right to the use of force to the
>>State, including the right to execute murderers after due process.
>
>
> I have not. I object to being put in a position where the State orders me to have
> the blood of murder on my hands, and I use every legal means at my disposal to
> prevent it from happening.
>
Yes, you have, implicitly, by living in that State. Your right to object
is part of that same social contract.
>
>>The
>>State of Florida gave Paul Hill all the benefit of due process; which he
>>most certainly did not afford to his victims.
>
>
> The matter is not "due process";
You are correct, the "matter" is the social contract and the right to
use force.
> American citizens of Japanese descent were put in
> concentration camps by the United States with "due process", and "due process" once
> required that black people be returned to their owners, who had every right to kill
> them in cold blood for having run away.
>
What do those red herrings have to do with my right to use force to
protect myself and my property and the social contract that delegates
that right to duly constituted authority?
> The matter is whether or not the ends of that due process is ethical.
--
Gregory Gadow
> Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote in message news:<3F573B06...@serv.net>...
> > quibbler wrote:
> >
> > > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20030904/ap
> > > _on_re_us/abortion_execution
> > >
> > > Man Who Killed Abortion Doctor Executed
> > >
> > > By RON WORD, Associated Press Writer
> > >
> > > STARKE, Fla. - Still defiant even as he was strapped to a gurney, a
> > > former minister who said he murdered an abortion doctor and his bodyguard
> > > to save the lives of unborn babies was executed Wednesday by injection.
> > > He was the first person put to death in the United States for anti-
> > > abortion violence....
> >
> > How does killing people who kill people prove that killing people is wrong?
> > Putting aside the question of whether or not a fetus is a "person", the state
> > of Florida is only validating Hill's methods.
>
> Too bad Hill didn't think this way. He killed two men because he
> thought/claimed that one of them was a killer. His reasoning is
> certainly suspect. Not so Florida.
>
> The state of Florida may or may not have been wrong to impose the
> death penalty, but their methods were certainly a lot better than
> Hill's. Hill appointed himself judge, jury and executioner.
So killing by committee is morally superior to killing as a solo act?
> He used his own desires to judge by, not law or reason.
Law and reason are not always ethical. I will again point out the US concentration camps
during WW II and the slave codes.
> He killed an innocent
> man (besides the doctor) just because he was there. Etcetera. You
> can harldly equate Florida's handling of him with his treatment of his
> victims.
I never said that they were equal. However, you do have parallel situations: the killing of
one person in punishment of that person having killed.
quibbler
says...
Yes and killing cattle ranchers prevents many innocent cows from being
butchered. The question is whether it is justifiable to murder an
actual, live, adult human being in order to save a creature of
questionable utility, such as a cow or a fetus.
I mean, I'm pretty sure you aren't serious, but I'll respond some more to
the statement anyway. Another problem with it is that it takes the view
that the ends justify the means. If there are other ways that abortions
could be prevented short of murdering the doctor and his escort, and
there certainly are other means, then we cannot say that murder was
justified in this case. Furthermore, the unborn babies are not
"murdered" anymore than a surgeon murders cancer cells by cutting a tumor
out of your body. Aside from the fact that murder is only a legal term,
there are lots of complex things that can prevent a fertilized zygote
from ever being born. The mother's own immune system can often attack
the fertilized cells. Many successfully fertilized zygotes encounter
cell replication errors and are genetically programmed to "auto-abort" in
those cases. In that case I guess the abortionist is nature itself, or
"god" if one wants to take the theistic perspective.
But the bottom line is that the life of a fetus is not meaningfully
developed to a point where it matters whether it is killed at that stage
or not. We kill many animals that are more developed than a fetus all
the time and most people don't give it a second thought. The mother is
the legally responsible agent for the developing child and her decision
to stop its development before its life has meaningfully begun is not
murder at all. To call it murder trivializes the actual act of murder
which happens to human beings who are substantially more developed and
are potentially very valuable, productive members of society.
quibbler
duk...@earthlink.net says...
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 22:18:42 -0600, quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >STARKE, Fla. - Still defiant even as he was strapped to a gurney, a
> >former minister who said he murdered an abortion doctor and his bodyguard
> >to save the lives of unborn babies was executed Wednesday by injection.
> >He was the first person put to death in the United States for anti-
> >abortion violence....
>
> >I guess even theocrat georgie and his high priest ashcroft couldn't trump
> >up some reason to stay the execution. Now paul hill is part of a dirt
> >hill in some cemetery. The world is certainly a better place for his
> >passing and he shall not be missed.
>
> Hey, quib, didn't you know that it is us conservatives that stand
> opposed to taking life, both prebirth and postbirth.
Bullshit, you stupid fucking moron. George W. Bush allowed more
executions during his brief reign as dictator of Texas than man other
governor in modern history. Surely you consider your boy georgie a
"conservative". Conservatard is more like it.
> It's you 'rats
> that are the big supporters of abortion
Abortion is one of the choices that I support, yes.
> - the butchering of the human
> unborn for one's own comfort and convenience.
Even if it is, you have not established that there is anything wrong with
that. Even your bible doesn't make the matter clear. How is it that you
have decided that it is wrong to butcher unborn children, but it is right
to butcher dolphins or chimpanzees or any other animal, so long as it
doesn't have human dna? That's rhetorical. You don't have an
intelligent answer so don't bother giving me any of your nonsense. You
don't have any evidence that these animals lack "souls" or that preborn
children have "souls". Of course, that doesn't stop idiots like yourself
in the "Right to Lie" movement from trying to pull phony evidence out of
your ass.
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis says...
>> They must consider those laws as coming from their god or something,
>> and if they were to give up their god, then they think they'd be free to
>> do whatever they wanted to do, regardless of any laws of the society
>> they live in. That's my guess anyway.
> And, sadly, I agree :(
I wonder how that idea gets drilled into their heads? Is it the One
Nation Under God thingy?
santa
: In article <vilelvsd3qe3iu18d...@4ax.com>,
Quibbler,
You are arguing again property rights aren't you? What farmer wants his
cows to decide whether or not and by who they are going to be milked? It is
just not on.
I don't support capital punishment but I have to agree with you putting Mr
Hill on the road to nowhere certainly improved the quality of life in
Florida.
claus
Brian E. Clark
> That's not exactly my intent. Here, I'm mainly just questioning his
> claim that he really wants to die to get to heaven asap.
Yes, I certainly agree that if Hill had been presented an opportunity to
live (especially to live free), he would have overcome his urge to see
his maker so soon.
quibbler
re...@newsgroup.only.please says...
> quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The world is certainly a better place for his
> > passing and he shall not be missed.
>
> Admittedly, it's hard to muster any compassion for Hill.
>
> Still, your comment sounds uncomfortably similar to Hill's own
> sentiments about the abortion doctor he gunned down.
The sentiment may be similar, but it is based on different logic and
different premises. The primary problem with Hill's actions is that his
premises were flawed. Abortions can definitely make the world a better
place, particularly if prenatal tests show that the baby is grossly
deformed or carrying a debilitating disease. More importantly, by
helping to control population, family planning in general makes the
standard of living better. Plus, of course, it helps empower women who
are disproportionately burdened with the task of raising children.
>
> Y'know it's lucky for Hill that there ISN'T a Judgement Day.
Hill experienced the closest thing to it.
> Imagine the
> baffled look on the face of Jesus's as he reviews Hill's life: "You did
> *what*? And you said *I* told you to do it?"
That would be funny. OTOH, if jesus started ripping on me then I'd tell
him that he could kiss my ass because he should have provided more
explicit guidance.
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> We'd still have crime and psychos out there, but the ideas of people being
>> rewarded in some heaven for killing other people would surely go away,
>> wouldn't it?
> I doubt it. The specific carrot and stick of heaven and hell would be
> removed, yes, but paradisiacal prophets would still promise peace and
> glory and offer the means to obtain them. (Think of the "marching toward
> the Promised Land" quality of the predictions of Marxism and global
> corporate capitalism.)
I doubt your doubt and raise you one.
> And as always, punishment, slaughter and systemic inequality will be
> "temporary" means required to achieve Utopia.
Maybe so. Who knows.
Daniel Kolle
<snip>
I wonder what his reward in heaven is...
--
-Kolle; 15 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, and Gustav Mahler are my Gods.
Madly Insane EAC Scientist.
Brian E. Clark
> > And as always, punishment, slaughter and systemic inequality will be
> > "temporary" means required to achieve Utopia.
>
> Maybe so. Who knows.
Keep in mind, I'm not saying it's inevitable that people will *heed* the
new prophets.
JTEM
"Brian E. Clark" <re...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote
> With all due respect, quibbler, it sounds like you're hell-bent
> on turning Hill into an all around demon.
He is.
Not only did he murder two people in cold blood -- one not
even guilty of any of his imagined sins -- but he never once
regreted his actions and used his execution as a soapbox on
which to stand as he called on others to follow in his footsteps.
JTEM
"Brian E. Clark" <re...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote
> Still, your comment sounds uncomfortably similar to Hill's
> own sentiments about the abortion doctor he gunned down.
My problem here is the illusion of "revenge."
Hill is now a martyr who got every television news program,
and every newspaper in the country to repeat his call for Jihad.
As the invasion of Iraq may have created 100 Bin Ladens, this
media event in Florida may result in another 100 Hills.
JTEM
<ric...@nospam.edu> wrote
> Did it strike anyone else as being odd that this piece of
> shit was allowed to have a press conference before he
> was executed?
Jeb Bush's way of getting Florida's government to underwrite
the cost of recruitment.
quibbler
If they want to play that game then they may find that it's not just
fanatic fundies who are willing to take up a gun and shoot at their
enemies.
quibbler
Are you serious that they actually allowed this man to incite criminal
violence before his death? Unbelievable. I'd definitely like to see the
transcripts of his "press conference" because it sounds to me like it was
an infomercial for right-wing terrorism.
Woden
news:MPG.19c06b0d5...@news.cis.dfn.de:
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20030904/
> ap _on_re_us/abortion_execution
>
> Man Who Killed Abortion Doctor Executed
>
> By RON WORD, Associated Press Writer
>
> STARKE, Fla. - Still defiant even as he was strapped to a gurney, a
> former minister who said he murdered an abortion doctor and his
> bodyguard to save the lives of unborn babies was executed Wednesday by
> injection. He was the first person put to death in the United States
> for anti- abortion violence....
You know, the press has gotten ridiculous with this comment about him being
the first person put to death for "anti-abortion violence". Let's don't
let them help make this fool into a martyr. He was executed for the
premeditated murder of two people. His political views are not what got
him executed.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I guess even theocrat georgie and his high priest ashcroft couldn't
> trump up some reason to stay the execution. Now paul hill is part of
> a dirt hill in some cemetery. The world is certainly a better place
> for his passing and he shall not be missed.
>
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
Born Again Atheist
> Born Again Atheist wrote:
>
> > I hear this claim quote often. Here is a nice cost breakdown which
> > UNFORTUNATELY supports your claim. : ) Something should be done to
> > lower costs of capital punishment trials. It should not exceed the
> > cost of life imprisonment.
> >
> > http://www.deathpenalty.org/facts/other/costly.shtml
>
>Thanks for the link, although I believe (pesky word for an atheist,
sorry) >that you draw the wrong
>conclusion, and that it would be better to eliminate capital
punishment >altogether.
I'm willing to change my mind in regard to this issue. However, I
think when there is a mountain of evidence (not necessarily an absence
of alibi) pointing out in the direction of the accused party capital
punishment should be given. I don't think a man who guns down children
in broad daylight with witnesses present should be given a fee ride to
prison and live her life off of tax payers' money.
It's true that there was a considerable number of innocent people
given capital punishment in the past. I cannot imagine the kind of
feelings I would exhibit if I were accused of crime I did not commit
and would have to give up my life because of incompetency of
prosecutors and attorneys or just being in the wrong place at the
wrong time. It's beyond being awful. Regardless of effectiveness of
DNA techniques and forensic science innocent people would still be
given capital punishments.
Perhaps, if there will be vast improvements in forensic science and
effective cost management in courts then capital punishment may become
feasible.
Brainfried Sysadmin
> I'm willing to change my mind in regard to this issue. However, I think
> when there is a mountain of evidence (not necessarily an absence of alibi)
> pointing out in the direction of the accused party capital punishment
> should be given. I don't think a man who guns down children in broad
> daylight with witnesses present should be given a fee ride to prison and
> live her life off of tax payers' money.
>
Normally the type of person that would do that kills himself at the end or
is gunned down by the police. (may be "suicide by cop", but is still
gunned down)
Let's take filming of a crime for example which would provide the
absolute best evidence. Should that type of person live and the crime is
filmed, MAYBE a death penalty is in order, because film is a very
dangerous thing. Film can be manipulated (cut) to drastically change the
story. Take the Rodney King beating. Sure, he was beat, but completely
left out was what he did prior to the beating. I don't want to hear any
crap about King. He's demonstrated multiple times that he probably
deserves a good beating.
> It's true that there was a considerable number of innocent people given
> capital punishment in the past. I cannot imagine the kind of feelings I
> would exhibit if I were accused of crime I did not commit and would have
> to give up my life because of incompetency of prosecutors and attorneys
> or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's beyond being
> awful. Regardless of effectiveness of DNA techniques and forensic
> science innocent people would still be given capital punishments.
>
> Perhaps, if there will be vast improvements in forensic science and
> effective cost management in courts then capital punishment may become
> feasible.
Never. The courts are always based upon people and people will always
make mistakes. The best forensic science can be screwed up by the
people doing the tests.
johac
Elroy Willis <e...@airmail.net> wrote:
> johac <jha...@remove.ixpres.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>
> > quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> I guess even theocrat georgie and his high priest ashcroft couldn't trump
> >> up some reason to stay the execution. Now paul hill is part of a dirt
> >> hill in some cemetery. The world is certainly a better place for his
> >> passing and he shall not be missed.
>
> > I'm not shedding any tears.
>
> > From the article:
>
> > "I expect a great reward in heaven," he said in an interview Tuesday,
> > during which he was cheerful, often smiling. "I am looking forward to
> > glory."
>
> I'm pretty sure he believed that the person he murdered would go
> straight to hell after he killed them, don't you think?
I'm sure that he did. He probably aimed so that they would die quick
with no chance of death bed repentance.
>
> > Doesn't this sound like the language of the Muslim extremist suicide
> > bombers?
>
> Pretty close, imo. I made the same comparison in a recent post of
> mine.
It would seem that religious extremists have a lot in common, no
matter what god they worship. That's unfortunate for the rest of
humanity.
>
> > The Muslim martyrs are supposed to get 72 virgins in their Paradise.
>
> And Hill will be praised by his god for murdering what he considered
> to be a baby killer or baby murderer.
And how many babies did his god supposedly kill in the flood, rains of
fire and brimstone, plagues, religious wars, etc. attributed to it?
>
> > What was Hill expecting? It doesn't matter. They both got
> > the same thing. They are just dead.
>
> It's the idea of some afterlife which people convince themselves that
> they'll be rewarded in, or others punished in, that is a thorn in the
> side of a truly civilized society, and I've been singing that tune for
> years, but not many people agree with me for some reason.
>
> If everyone believed that there's no afterlife, I can't help but think
> that things would be a bit more peaceful here on earth. We'd still
> have crime and psychos out there, but the ideas of people being
> rewarded in some heaven for killing other people would surely go away,
> wouldn't it?
As long as they say they do it in the name of their god, they think
it's perfectly all right, no matter how heinous the deed. I think that
their 11th Commandment should be, "The ends justify the means".
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
Pierre Laplace, when asked by Napoleon on why he made
no mention of a god in his book on astronomy: "Sire,
I have no need of that hypothesis."
johac
Brainfried Sysadmin <n...@way.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 22:20:51 -0700, johac wrote:
>
> > "I expect a great reward in heaven," he said in an interview Tuesday,
> > during which he was cheerful, often smiling. "I am looking forward to
> > glory."
>
> I'm normally against the death penalty for practical reasons. It's not
> that I don't think people should be put to death for killing someone, it's
> just that court make mistakes and puts innocent people to death
> (no way to undo that and make amends) and it often costs more to put
> someone to death (legal process costs and all) than it does to literally
> lock them up for life.
I oppose the death penalty because I think it's wrong top take a human
life unnecessarily. The only justifiable reason, imo, to kill another
human being is self-defense.
>
> But in this case, this idiot got what he wanted. I am astounded that if
> someone claimed that they were doing it in the name of Santa Claus that
> they would be ruled insane and sent for treatment, but in the name of gawd
> they are viewed as sane. Doing otherwise would threaten the foundation
> of religion.
I've always thought that religious extremism is a form of insanity.
>
> As I continue on as an atheist, I am both happier and more sad.
>
> I am happy that life for me has become much more clearer. A huge amount
> of confusion in life is caused by religious beliefs.
>
> I am more sad as I see just how stupid people can be in the name of gawd.
I know what you mean. I am happy to be free of superstition. But at
the same time I am sad to see all of the lousy stuff happening in the
word today, and I can't blame it on a god, or the devil, or sin
anymore. It's us, and it's up to us to stop it.
JTEM
The Paul Hill issue of "The Abortion Abolitionist"
magazine. Check out the cover:
http://www.theabortionabolitionist.com/PaulHillIssue.htm
JTEM
"quibbler" <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Are you serious that they actually allowed this man to incite
> criminal violence before his death?
Definitely.
> Unbelievable.
Not with the neo-cons in power. One gets the impression that
they want more violence.
> I'd definitely like to see the transcripts of his "press conference"
> because it sounds to me like it was an infomercial for right-wing
> terrorism.
It was held on September 2nd. Oddly, CNN called it an "interview"
in their story, though everyone else in the media called it a press
conference, and even CNN's photo has him seated behind a number
of microphones.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/09/02/abortion.execution.ap/
It's not really a transcript but it's enough to get your blood going.
Heck, even the "authorized" Paul Hill web site doesn't have the
transcript of his last press conference:
http://www.armyofgod.com/Paulhillindex.html
Anyhow, here's someone who shares your thoughts:
"I don't understand why a convicted murderer/terrorist is allowed
to hold a press conference. I've been pretty adamant about staying
off of political topics, but this really amazed me..."
http://blog.tortured-artist.com/
Sorry, just couldn't find a transcript.
jwk
Just because someone, or a group of someones, does something unethical
like the concentration camps, does not make everything every group
does unethical. I don't see why you would bring them up. If the
court in Florida was unjust, tell us. Otherwise the comparison is not
valid.
I don't like the "deterrent" theory of capitol punishment generally.
I don't know that it deters anything. Except in this case I think it
might. Hill did not believe they would execute him for his killings.
It came as a surprise, he said. I hope it opened the eyes of some of
his supporters who have similar ideas. They might relish the idea of
giving holier-than-thou interviews from prison, but being dead isn't
as much fun. If this is wrong, what harm has been done? The guy was
a waste of skin.
You sound like you think revenge was the reason for Hill's execution.
I think it often is the motive, and I would agree that it is not a
valid one. However, in this case I believe there are other, valid
reasons to execute this guy. Deterring other idiots is a good one.
Keeping this guy from preaching jihad from prison is another. Whether
the court thought this way or not, there are several good outcomes of
his execution.
jwk
Gregory Gadow
> Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote in message news:<3F5759A8...@serv.net>...
> > Born Again Atheist wrote:
> >
>
> > > I hear this claim quote often. Here is a nice cost breakdown which
> > > UNFORTUNATELY supports your claim. : ) Something should be done to
> > > lower costs of capital punishment trials. It should not exceed the
> > > cost of life imprisonment.
> > >
> > > http://www.deathpenalty.org/facts/other/costly.shtml
> >
> >Thanks for the link, although I believe (pesky word for an atheist,
> sorry) >that you draw the wrong
> >conclusion, and that it would be better to eliminate capital
> punishment >altogether.
>
> I'm willing to change my mind in regard to this issue. However, I
> think when there is a mountain of evidence (not necessarily an absence
> of alibi) pointing out in the direction of the accused party capital
> punishment should be given. I don't think a man who guns down children
> in broad daylight with witnesses present should be given a fee ride to
> prison and live her life off of tax payers' money.
I would hardly call prison a free ride.
> It's true that there was a considerable number of innocent people
> given capital punishment in the past. I cannot imagine the kind of
> feelings I would exhibit if I were accused of crime I did not commit
> and would have to give up my life because of incompetency of
> prosecutors and attorneys or just being in the wrong place at the
> wrong time. It's beyond being awful. Regardless of effectiveness of
> DNA techniques and forensic science innocent people would still be
> given capital punishments.
>
> Perhaps, if there will be vast improvements in forensic science and
> effective cost management in courts then capital punishment may become
> feasible.
But until that time....
quibbler
>
> The Paul Hill issue of "The Abortion Abolitionist"
> magazine. Check out the cover:
>
>
> http://www.theabortionabolitionist.com/PaulHillIssue.htm
Fanatic, murdering terrorists like John Brown are a perfect illustration
that the ends do not justify the means. While Brown might have been
right that slavery was an oppressive system, he was completely wrong
about the methods that were justified in ending it. Many abolitionists
were embarrassed to have a psychopathic scumbag and cold-blooded killer
like Brown in the same party as them. Brown, like Hill, was really just
a mentally deranged loser who latched onto a cause like abolitionism as
an excuse to behave as a thug and a theocratic monster.
Now as far as equation abolition of slavery with the abolition of
abortion, these people are entirely full of shit. They are actually
supporting the enslaving of women by trying to outlaw abortion. These
people don't stand for women's rights. They stand for stone-age, bible-
based oppression. Also, they are simply behind the times scientifically
speaking. There are already drugs that are better than RU486 and will
make getting an abortion impossible to stop. But more than anything,
these people are complete and total liars when they say that they care
about life, unborn or otherwise. I saw an interview with Ben Stein where
he was saying the same crap about anti-abortion being another abolition
movement. It was too bad that the interviewer didn't say, "As a former
Nixon speech writer you didn't object to the bombing of cambodia and the
napalming of vietnamese children and yet you honestly expect us to
believe that you give a damn about life?" That's why I refer to their
movement as the "Right to Lie" movement. They can't stop lying about
their real agenda of oppressing women and imposing their
bullshit theocratic standards on the rest of society.
quibbler
>
> "quibbler" <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > Are you serious that they actually allowed this man to incite
> > criminal violence before his death?
>
> Definitely.
>
> > Unbelievable.
>
> Not with the neo-cons in power. One gets the impression that
> they want more violence.
>
> > I'd definitely like to see the transcripts of his "press conference"
> > because it sounds to me like it was an infomercial for right-wing
> > terrorism.
>
> It was held on September 2nd. Oddly, CNN called it an "interview"
> in their story, though everyone else in the media called it a press
> conference, and even CNN's photo has him seated behind a number
> of microphones.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/09/02/abortion.execution.ap/
Yep, he does illegally incite violence and every network that carried
that message could be potentially liable. I wonder how many other
murderers are now going to expect their own live press conferences where
they can talk about all of their twisted views.
> It's not really a transcript but it's enough to get your blood going.
>
> Heck, even the "authorized" Paul Hill web site doesn't have the
> transcript of his last press conference:
> http://www.armyofgod.com/Paulhillindex.html
It's a pretty sick site, nonetheless. From what I have seen, Hill is a
pathetic writer who is incredibly shallow in his analysis.
>
> Anyhow, here's someone who shares your thoughts:
>
> "I don't understand why a convicted murderer/terrorist is allowed
> to hold a press conference.
It certainly should not have been unstructured or live. He can offer
personal opinions relating to his own conduct. But when he suggests that
others *should* follow his example that is crossing the line. All
broadcast news edits for sound bites and content. They could have very
easily played statements that he made which were legal and then said, "In
addition Mr. Hill attempted to illegally incite criminal activity in his
last press conference. Now here with an opinion on why Paul Hill is a
scum-sucking pig here's Andy Rooney..."
Born Again Atheist
> ric...@nospam.edu wrote:
> >
> > Did it strike anyone else as being odd that this piece of shit
> > was allowed to have a press conference before he was executed?
>
> It was entirely unprecedented, but entirely expected. After all, we have a
> radical fundamentalist Christian being put to death for acting upon his >radical fundametalist Christianity, and the state of Florida.
Locke's interpretation of a "madman" and an "idiot" from "An essay
concerning human understanding". An interesting read.
Idiots and madmen. How far idiots are concerned in the want or
weakness of any, or all of the foregoing faculties, an exact
observation of their several ways of faultering would no doubt
discover. For those who either perceive but dully, or retain the ideas
that come into their minds but ill, who cannot readily excite or
compound them, will have little matter to think on. Those who cannot
distinguish, compare, and abstract, would hardly be able to understand
and make use of language, or judge or reason to any tolerable
degree; but only a little and imperfectly about things present, and
very familiar to their senses. And indeed any of the forementioned
faculties, if wanting, or out of order, produce suitable defects in
men's understandings and knowledge.
Difference between idiots and madmen. In fine, the defect in
naturals seems to proceed from want of quickness, activity, and motion
in the intellectual faculties, whereby they are deprived of reason;
whereas madmen, on the other side, seem to suffer by the other
extreme. For they do not appear to me to have lost the faculty of
reasoning, but having joined together some ideas very wrongly, they
mistake them for truths; and they err as men do that argue right
from wrong principles. For, by the violence of their imaginations,
having taken their fancies for realities, they make right deductions
from them. Thus you shall find a distracted man fancying himself a
king, with a right inference require suitable attendance, respect, and
obedience: others who have thought themselves made of glass, have used
the caution necessary to preserve such brittle bodies. Hence it
comes to pass that a man who is very sober, and of a right
understanding in all other things, may in one particular be as frantic
as any in Bedlam; if either by any sudden very strong impression, or
long fixing his fancy upon one sort of thoughts, incoherent ideas have
been cemented together so powerfully, as to remain united. But there
are degrees of madness, as of folly; the disorderly jumbling ideas
together is in some more, and some less. In short, herein seems to lie
the difference between idiots and madmen: that madmen put wrong
ideas together, and so make wrong propositions, but argue and reason
right from them; but idiots make very few or no propositions, and
reason scarce at all.
duke32
wrote:
>> Hey, quib, didn't you know that it is us conservatives that stand
>> opposed to taking life, both prebirth and postbirth.
>Bullshit, you stupid fucking moron. George W. Bush allowed more
>executions during his brief reign as dictator of Texas than man other
>governor in modern history. Surely you consider your boy georgie a
>"conservative". Conservatard is more like it.
The death penalty is for those that destroy the lives of others and
who clearly show they can't live in society.
Two more things:
GBush2 didn't do it - a jury of their peers gave them "death".
Personally, I'm opposed to the death penalty.
>> It's you 'rats
>> that are the big supporters of abortion
>Abortion is one of the choices that I support, yes.
Abortion is the ultimate act of selfishness - to butcher the life of
one's own unborn for one's own comfort and convenience.
>> - the butchering of the human
>> unborn for one's own comfort and convenience.
>Even if it is, you have not established that there is anything wrong with
>that.
God has already established te mortal error of abortion.
> Even your bible doesn't make the matter clear.
Scripture makes it very clear. Try reading Matthew 25:31-46.
> How is it that you
>have decided that it is wrong to butcher unborn children, but it is right
>to butcher dolphins or chimpanzees or any other animal, so long as it
>doesn't have human dna?
Where did I say it was right to butcher dolphins or chimpanzees or any
other animal?
However, these are not made in the image and likeness of almighty God,
and can fuction for the betterment of man, as in medical research and
food.
> That's rhetorical. You don't have an
>intelligent answer so don't bother giving me any of your nonsense.
You never gave me a change to answer.
> You
>don't have any evidence that these animals lack "souls" or that preborn
>children have "souls".
God said so.
> Of course, that doesn't stop idiots like yourself
>in the "Right to Lie" movement from trying to pull phony evidence out of
>your ass.
Abortionists and those that support the butchery of the human unborn
are making a mistake with mortal consequences.
duke, American-American
*****
2Cor 5:10 - For we must all appear before the
judgment seat of Christ, that each one may
receive what is due him for the things done
while in the body, whether good or bad.
*****
quibbler
duk...@earthlink.net says...
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 13:58:31 -0600, quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Hey, quib, didn't you know that it is us conservatives that stand
> >> opposed to taking life, both prebirth and postbirth.
>
> >Bullshit, you stupid fucking moron. George W. Bush allowed more
> >executions during his brief reign as dictator of Texas than man other
> >governor in modern history. Surely you consider your boy georgie a
> >"conservative". Conservatard is more like it.
>
> The death penalty is for those that
No, you need to say, "The death penalty is for those *who*
> destroy the lives of others
What do you mean by "destroy the lives of other". Is this killing them
or other things in addition. Futhermore, upon what sources are you
basing this death penalty standard?
> and
> who clearly show they can't live in society.
Many criminals can't live in society, but they can live in jail. I made
similar comments about my personal standards for when I find the death
penalty acceptable. However, I labelled it as my own opinion and I added
some reasonable qualifications which you have omitted. That's because
I'm honest and I think, unlike you.
>
> Two more things:
>
> GBush2 didn't do it - a jury of their peers gave them "death".
That's beside the point. The governor could commute the sentences and in
many cases Bush failed to even properly review the sentences. Therefore
he is responsible for all the deaths, since he could have prevented any
that he chose to stop. Other governors have commuted the sentences of
all death row inmates to life in prison without parole, for example.
>
> Personally, I'm opposed to the death penalty.
Still, you claimed that conservatives were opposed to taking of a life,
which is clearly false, particularly in the case of George W. Bush. In
addition to all the lives that he bore ultimate responsibility for taking
in Texas, he also has the blood of hundreds of american soldiers and
thousands of Iraqi civilians on his filthy hands. In any event, that
makes you a liar.
>
> >> It's you 'rats
> >> that are the big supporters of abortion
>
> >Abortion is one of the choices that I support, yes.
>
> Abortion is the ultimate act of selfishness
Many conservatives argued that selfishness and greed were good things.
Cheney is a rather quintessential example. Where have you shown that
greed is bad?
> - to butcher the life of
> one's own unborn for one's own comfort and convenience.
So what? Maybe one's own comfort and convenience is better than having
another child to raise for several decades. Perhaps people will have the
free time to do great things because they didn't have to fritter away
their time raising children.
>
> >> - the butchering of the human
> >> unborn for one's own comfort and convenience.
>
> >Even if it is, you have not established that there is anything wrong with
> >that.
>
> God has already established te mortal error of abortion.
Your god established no such thing.
>
> > Even your bible doesn't make the matter clear.
>
> Scripture makes it very clear. Try reading Matthew 25:31-46.
Puhleeze. That says nothing of the sort, particularly about abortion.
Until the fetus dies it is getting complete sustenance from the mother.
If you wish then the fetus can be anesthetized, guaranteeing that it will
feel no pain, even though it's not clear that it would know what that was
to begin with.
>
> > How is it that you
> >have decided that it is wrong to butcher unborn children, but it is right
> >to butcher dolphins or chimpanzees or any other animal, so long as it
> >doesn't have human dna?
>
> Where did I say it was right to butcher dolphins or chimpanzees or any
> other animal?
Your bible suggests that animals are less important and you profess to
believe your bible, for one thing. But if you wish to risk hellfire for
a debate point then tell me what your position on the lives of non-human
animals is.
>
> However, these are not made in the image and likeness of almighty God,
> and can fuction for the betterment of man, as in medical research and
> food.
>
> > That's rhetorical. You don't have an
> >intelligent answer so don't bother giving me any of your nonsense.
>
> You never gave me a change to answer.
Shut up fool. I just told you to not bother since it's clear that you
have nothing intelligent to say. I don't need your reader's digest
version of what I just said.
>
> > You
> >don't have any evidence that these animals lack "souls" or that preborn
> >children have "souls".
>
> God said so.
Unevidenced assertion.
>
> > Of course, that doesn't stop idiots like yourself
> >in the "Right to Lie" movement from trying to pull phony evidence out of
> >your ass.
>
> Abortionists and those that support the butchery of the human unborn
> are making a mistake with mortal consequences.
No kidding the consequences are "mortal". The fetus dies. But it's not
clear that this is important, so long as the woman gives her consent.
Now STFU and FOAD, as always.
>
> duke, American-American
> *****
> 2Cor 5:10 - For we must all appear before the
> judgment seat of Christ, that each one may
> receive what is due him for the things done
> while in the body, whether good or bad.
> *****
>
--
duke32
wrote:
>> >Bullshit, you stupid fucking moron. George W. Bush allowed more
>> >executions during his brief reign as dictator of Texas than man other
>> >governor in modern history. Surely you consider your boy georgie a
>> >"conservative". Conservatard is more like it.
>> The death penalty is for those that destroy the lives of others
>What do you mean by "destroy the lives of other". Is this killing them
>or other things in addition. Futhermore, upon what sources are you
>basing this death penalty standard?
The source is the law of the land, and the penalty is akin to the
crime.
>> and
>> who clearly show they can't live in society.
>Many criminals can't live in society, but they can live in jail.
Jail is to remove them from the society they show they can't live in.
> I made
>similar comments about my personal standards for when I find the death
>penalty acceptable. However, I labelled it as my own opinion and I added
>some reasonable qualifications which you have omitted. That's because
>I'm honest and I think, unlike you.
At least you think you do.
>> Two more things:
>> GBush2 didn't do it - a jury of their peers gave them "death".
>That's beside the point.
That is **THE** point.
> The governor could commute the sentences and in
>many cases Bush failed to even properly review the sentences.
How do you know? I say he did exactly what the governor is supposed
to do. Can you show otherwise?
>> Personally, I'm opposed to the death penalty.
>Still, you claimed that conservatives were opposed to taking of a life,
>which is clearly false, particularly in the case of George W. Bush.
Conservatives are opposed to taking *innocent* life.
>In addition to all the lives that he bore ultimate responsibility for taking
>in Texas, he also has the blood of hundreds of american soldiers and
>thousands of Iraqi civilians on his filthy hands. In any event, that
>makes you a liar.
Nope. Juries condemn murderers. As Commander in Chief, he is
obligated by law to protect this country.
>> Abortion is the ultimate act of selfishness
>Many conservatives argued that selfishness and greed were good things.
>Cheney is a rather quintessential example. Where have you shown that
>greed is bad?
Abortion of the unborn innocent is murder, the butchery of the human
unborn for one's comfort and convenience.
God will settle up with those that do such things one moment after
they take their final breath on this earth.
>> - to butcher the life of
>> one's own unborn for one's own comfort and convenience.
>So what? Maybe one's own comfort and convenience is better than having
>another child to raise for several decades.
No kidding. So your moral standards are that nonexistant?????
> Perhaps people will have the
>free time to do great things because they didn't have to fritter away
>their time raising children.
What a loser you are.
>> God has already established te mortal error of abortion.
>Your god established no such thing.
Prepare yourself.
>> > Even your bible doesn't make the matter clear.
>> Scripture makes it very clear. Try reading Matthew 25:31-46.
>Puhleeze. That says nothing of the sort, particularly about abortion.
Don't understand scripture, do you.
>Until the fetus dies it is getting complete sustenance from the mother.
>If you wish then the fetus can be anesthetized, guaranteeing that it will
>feel no pain, even though it's not clear that it would know what that was
>to begin with.
Wow, this loser thinks human life is no more than what it can feel.
>> Where did I say it was right to butcher dolphins or chimpanzees or any
>> other animal?
>Your bible suggests that animals are less important and you profess to
>believe your bible, for one thing.
Where does the bible profess that animals are not important?
>Shut up fool. I just told you to not bother since it's clear that you
>have nothing intelligent to say. I don't need your reader's digest
>version of what I just said.
I have a lot of intelligent things to say, but you are not capable of
grasping them.
>> > Of course, that doesn't stop idiots like yourself
>> >in the "Right to Lie" movement from trying to pull phony evidence out of
>> >your ass.
>> Abortionists and those that support the butchery of the human unborn
>> are making a mistake with mortal consequences.
>No kidding the consequences are "mortal". The fetus dies.
And so does the performer/participant.
For all eternity to boot.
quibbler
duk...@earthlink.net says...
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 17:20:40 -0600, quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> >Bullshit, you stupid fucking moron. George W. Bush allowed more
> >> >executions during his brief reign as dictator of Texas than man other
> >> >governor in modern history. Surely you consider your boy georgie a
> >> >"conservative". Conservatard is more like it.
>
> >> The death penalty is for those that destroy the lives of others
>
> >What do you mean by "destroy the lives of other". Is this killing them
> >or other things in addition. Futhermore, upon what sources are you
> >basing this death penalty standard?
>
> The source is the law of the land,
The source of the law of the land is the constitution and it says nothing
about abortion. The bible is absolutely not the law of the land, nor are
the ten commandments, since the constitution contradicts fundamental
elements of the ten commandments and various other requirements of the
old and new testament.
> and the penalty is akin to the
> crime.
That could mean a lot of things. From a biblical perspective it could
mean that gawd will not allow an abortion doctor to have children
himself. There is no indication that Paul Hill is entitled to pass
judgment on other people.
>
> >> and
> >> who clearly show they can't live in society.
>
> >Many criminals can't live in society, but they can live in jail.
>
> Jail is to remove them from the society they show they can't live in.
No shit, moron. The point was that capital punishment is not the only
means to remove people from society who prove that they can't live in it.
So you will have to propose another criteria by which we can determine
which people get capital punishment and which do not. If you are saying
that anyone who kills must be killed then that standard is way to loose
and it would certainly include paul hill as someone worthy of death.
>
> > I made
> >similar comments about my personal standards for when I find the death
> >penalty acceptable. However, I labelled it as my own opinion and I added
> >some reasonable qualifications which you have omitted. That's because
> >I'm honest and I think, unlike you.
>
> At least you think you do.
You would be confirming what I just said because I said "I think" and you
rather stupidly said that I think that I think, which would still be
thinking.
>
> >> Two more things:
> >> GBush2 didn't do it - a jury of their peers gave them "death".
>
> >That's beside the point.
>
> That is **THE** point.
No, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the point. George Bush was not
obligated to carry out those sentences. He has official power to pardon
or commute any sentence. Therefore, it does not matter that a jury gave
some of those people the death sentence, if that is in fact what
happened. It was very clear in many of the executions which boy georgie
allowed, that some serious irregularities had occurred. But he didn't
pay any attention to them and therefore is probably guilty of executing
people for crimes they didn't commit.
>
> > The governor could commute the sentences and in
> >many cases Bush failed to even properly review the sentences.
>
> How do you know?
Because I can read, fool. The executions that he allowed all have
associated court documents. In many cases his legal council failed to
point out standard instances in which the evidence may have been weak,
the defendant may not have had access to proper council, etc. These are
all things that should have at least been reviewed by Bush. But that
would have required a stay of execution. Bush only issued one stay of
execution out of all the executions he allowed from what I've heard.
> I say he did exactly what the governor is supposed
> to do.
You say incorrectly. He was not diligent enough about reviewing those
cases for standard legal irregularities. See:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0702-04.htm
That article shows the way that Bush's legal council biased bush, but in
any event, bush had an obligation to seek the truth. He cannot always
try to shift the blame onto someone else when he ultimately holds the
power.
> Can you show otherwise?
Yes, I can show that he did not follow standard legal procedures which
many other governors did. I can show that other governors were far more
diligent than bush. To all appearances bush was negligent because he
simply didn't give a shit about most of the people he executed.
Nevermind that he is supposed to have an xian obligation to make sure
that he is not killing people who might be innocent or allowing to harsh
a sentence to be carried out. As I have said to you multiple times, Bush
had the authority to change sentences or issue full pardons, so it
doesn't matter what the jury decided.
>
> >> Personally, I'm opposed to the death penalty.
>
> >Still, you claimed that conservatives were opposed to taking of a life,
> >which is clearly false, particularly in the case of George W. Bush.
>
> Conservatives are opposed to taking *innocent* life.
That's not what you said originally. You said, "us conservatives that
stand opposed to taking life, both prebirth and postbirth." That doesn't
just suggest innocent life. Furthermore, you still haven't said how
exactly you decide when someone deserves death or not. According to your
religious doctrine nobody is entirely innocent, due to original sin.
That would include the pre-born. Are you just going to ignorantly punt
again and make some vague reference to the bible. The bible does not
include sufficiently specific guidelines on various issues from
euthanasia to abortion, for example. Furthermore, at various times the
bible seems to recommend contradictory behavior. For example, king saul
attempts to commit suicide according to some accounts and yet at other
places suicide is condemned. For that matter jesus essentially commits
suicide by cop. If he was innocent of sin then his surrender to the
authorities amounted to the taking of his own innocent life. Moses
commits murder or incites murder on more than one occasion, when it is
not clear that the people he is killing deserve death.
> >In addition to all the lives that he bore ultimate responsibility for taking
> >in Texas, he also has the blood of hundreds of american soldiers and
> >thousands of Iraqi civilians on his filthy hands. In any event, that
> >makes you a liar.
>
> Nope. Juries condemn murderers.
And the governor is capable of pardoning. Therefore it makes no
difference in the final analysis what the jury decides, since the
governor can issue these pardons.
> As Commander in Chief, he is
> obligated by law to protect this country.
We're talking about when he was governor of texas, fool. In any event,
the president can also issue pardons for federal offenses.
>
> >> Abortion is the ultimate act of selfishness
> >Many conservatives argued that selfishness and greed were good things.
> >Cheney is a rather quintessential example. Where have you shown that
> >greed is bad?
>
> Abortion of the unborn innocent is murder
No. Murder is a legally defined concept and abortion is not illegal. I
agree that abortion is killing, even of erstwhile innocent fetuses. But
it is not clear that this is wrong. It's not clear that killing
(innocent) sperm is wrong. It's not clear that killing (innocent) hair
follicles is wrong. It's not clear that killing (innocent) tumor cells
is wrong. It's not clear that killing innocent chimps or dolphins is
right or wrong in all cases.
>, the butchery of the human
> unborn for one's comfort and convenience.
>
> God will settle up with those that do such things one moment after
> they take their final breath on this earth.
Bullshit. There is no evidence of a specific god or final judgment.
>
> >> - to butcher the life of
> >> one's own unborn for one's own comfort and convenience.
>
> >So what? Maybe one's own comfort and convenience is better than having
> >another child to raise for several decades.
>
> No kidding.
I'm glad you agree.
> So your moral standards are that nonexistant?????
No. I have quite a strong set of ethical standards, fuck you very much.
>
> > Perhaps people will have the
> >free time to do great things because they didn't have to fritter away
> >their time raising children.
>
> What a loser you are.
You better be talking to yourself in the mirror.
>
> >> God has already established te mortal error of abortion.
> >Your god established no such thing.
>
> Prepare yourself.
I was born ready, bitch.
>
> >> > Even your bible doesn't make the matter clear.
> >> Scripture makes it very clear. Try reading Matthew 25:31-46.
>
> >Puhleeze. That says nothing of the sort, particularly about abortion.
>
> Don't understand scripture, do you.
Sure I do. I understand it better than you, as usual.
>
> >Until the fetus dies it is getting complete sustenance from the mother.
> >If you wish then the fetus can be anesthetized, guaranteeing that it will
> >feel no pain, even though it's not clear that it would know what that was
> >to begin with.
>
> Wow, this loser thinks human life is no more than what it can feel.
That's not what I said. I just suggested that this might make it more
palatable if rudimentary sensations were present. At various stages of
development even that might not be the case.
>
> >> Where did I say it was right to butcher dolphins or chimpanzees or any
> >> other animal?
>
> >Your bible suggests that animals are less important and you profess to
> >believe your bible, for one thing.
>
> Where does the bible profess that animals are not important?
In dozens of places animals are wantonly killed and/or mistreated.
>
> >Shut up fool. I just told you to not bother since it's clear that you
> >have nothing intelligent to say. I don't need your reader's digest
> >version of what I just said.
>
> I have a lot of intelligent things
You have yet to say even one in all the time you have been here.
> to say, but you are not capable of
> grasping them.
Your ridiculous, fallacious assertion is noted.
>
> >> > Of course, that doesn't stop idiots like yourself
> >> >in the "Right to Lie" movement from trying to pull phony evidence out of
> >> >your ass.
> >> Abortionists and those that support the butchery of the human unborn
> >> are making a mistake with mortal consequences.
>
> >No kidding the consequences are "mortal". The fetus dies.
>
> And so does the performer/participant.
Not as a consequence of the action.
>
> For all eternity to boot.
If they are dead then they won't care.
duke32
wrote:
>> >> The death penalty is for those that destroy the lives of others
>> >What do you mean by "destroy the lives of other". Is this killing them
>> >or other things in addition. Futhermore, upon what sources are you
>> >basing this death penalty standard?
>> The source is the law of the land,
>The source of the law of the land is the constitution and it says nothing
>about abortion.
Doesn't matter. If the law don't get you first, you will have to
stand before God and answer for the things you did in the flesh.
And abortion is strictly a no-no.
>> and the penalty is akin to the
>> crime.
>That could mean a lot of things. From a biblical perspective it could
>mean that gawd will not allow an abortion doctor to have children
>himself.
Or to die accordingly.
>There is no indication that Paul Hill is entitled to pass
>judgment on other people.
He has no such right at all. Hill was execututed in accordance with
the law of this land. What his fate is before God nobody knows.
>> >Many criminals can't live in society, but they can live in jail.
>> Jail is to remove them from the society they show they can't live in.
>No shit, moron.
If you knew before, why didn't you say so.
> The point was that capital punishment is not the only
>means to remove people from society who prove that they can't live in it.
>So you will have to propose another criteria by which we can determine
>which people get capital punishment and which do not.
We already have such a system.
> If you are saying
>that anyone who kills must be killed then that standard is way to loose
>and it would certainly include paul hill as someone worthy of death.
Don't tell me. I don't stand in support of Hill.
>> > I made
>> >similar comments about my personal standards for when I find the death
>> >penalty acceptable. However, I labelled it as my own opinion and I added
>> >some reasonable qualifications which you have omitted. That's because
>> >I'm honest and I think, unlike you.
>> At least you think you do.
>You would be confirming what I just said because I said "I think" and you
>rather stupidly said that I think that I think, which would still be
>thinking.
Is the ice tea too sweet?
>> >> Two more things:
>> >> GBush2 didn't do it - a jury of their peers gave them "death".
>> >That's beside the point.
>> That is **THE** point.
>No, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the point. George Bush was not
>obligated to carry out those sentences.
George Bush didn't carry out the sentence. The state did.
> He has official power to pardon
>or commute any sentence.
Not without cause.
> Therefore, it does not matter that a jury gave
>some of those people the death sentence, if that is in fact what
>happened. It was very clear in many of the executions which boy georgie
>allowed, that some serious irregularities had occurred.
You don't understand the law, do you?
> But he didn't
>pay any attention to them and therefore is probably guilty of executing
>people for crimes they didn't commit.
Bush didn't pull the switch. The state did, and in strict accordance
of the laws of the state which he as governor is obligated to allow to
be carried out unless some underlying circumstances come to light.
But you don't undersand that.
>> > The governor could commute the sentences and in
>> >many cases Bush failed to even properly review the sentences.
>> How do you know?
>Because I can read, fool. The executions that he allowed all have
>associated court documents. In many cases his legal council failed to
>point out standard instances in which the evidence may have been weak,
>the defendant may not have had access to proper council, etc. These are
>all things that should have at least been reviewed by Bush. But that
>would have required a stay of execution. Bush only issued one stay of
>execution out of all the executions he allowed from what I've heard.
The juries said "guilty". Give him the chair.
The state executes those people, not Bush.
But you don't understand that, do you?
> I say he did exactly what the governor is supposed
>> to do.
>You say incorrectly. He was not diligent enough about reviewing those
>cases for standard legal irregularities.
>http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0702-04.htm
>That article shows the way that Bush's legal council biased bush, but in
>any event, bush had an obligation to seek the truth. He cannot always
>try to shift the blame onto someone else when he ultimately holds the
>power.
The jury had the truth. They are the ones that said "guilty".
>> Can you show otherwise?
>Yes, I can show that he did not follow standard legal procedures which
>many other governors did.
I can fly, but getting somebody to believe me is a different thing.
Can you show otherwise?
> I can show that other governors were far more
>diligent than bush.
No you can't.
>> >Still, you claimed that conservatives were opposed to taking of a life,
>> >which is clearly false, particularly in the case of George W. Bush.
>> Conservatives are opposed to taking *innocent* life.
>That's not what you said originally. You said, "us conservatives that
>stand opposed to taking life, both prebirth and postbirth." That doesn't
>just suggest innocent life.
Criminals found guilt of murder are **not innocent**.
> Furthermore, you still haven't said how
>exactly you decide when someone deserves death or not.
The jury decides that.
> According to your
>religious doctrine nobody is entirely innocent, due to original sin.
>That would include the pre-born.
But what is your point?
> Are you just going to ignorantly punt
>again and make some vague reference to the bible. The bible does not
>include sufficiently specific guidelines on various issues from
>euthanasia to abortion, for example.
The bible is very specific for the new covenant. Love one another as
I love you. Also: revence is mine, says the Lord.
> Furthermore, at various times the
>bible seems to recommend contradictory behavior. For example, king saul
>attempts to commit suicide according to some accounts and yet at other
>places suicide is condemned.
The bible is not contradictiory at all. Saul is not hte one to make
the call on suicide.
>For that matter jesus essentially commits
>suicide by cop. If he was innocent of sin then his surrender to the
>authorities amounted to the taking of his own innocent life.
what a bunch of garbage.
> Moses
>commits murder or incites murder on more than one occasion, when it is
>not clear that the people he is killing deserve death.
I gather the old covenant vs new covenant is over your head.
>> >In addition to all the lives that he bore ultimate responsibility for taking
>> >in Texas, he also has the blood of hundreds of american soldiers and
>> >thousands of Iraqi civilians on his filthy hands. In any event, that
>> >makes you a liar.
>> Nope. Juries condemn murderers.
>And the governor is capable of pardoning.
Not abritrarily he isn't. He took an oath to obey and carry out the
laws of the state. And if the state says "to the chair", it's his job
to not stand in the way unless a case can be made for an unfair
decision.
> Therefore it makes no
>difference in the final analysis what the jury decides, since the
>governor can issue these pardons.
Nope, not on a whim.
>> As Commander in Chief, he is
>> obligated by law to protect this country.
>We're talking about when he was governor of texas, fool. In any event,
>the president can also issue pardons for federal offenses.
Not on a whim.
Are you sure you're old enough and knowledgable enough to be posting
on the internet?
>> >> Abortion is the ultimate act of selfishness
>> >Many conservatives argued that selfishness and greed were good things.
>> >Cheney is a rather quintessential example. Where have you shown that
>> >greed is bad?
>> Abortion of the unborn innocent is murder
>No. Murder is a legally defined concept and abortion is not illegal.
Legally, by state/federal law, you're right, but only for now. We
will get that changed eventually. It the most contraversial and hated
law of the land. We are not thru with it.
By the time youi get to be 18, we may have already gotten it reversed.
>I agree that abortion is killing, even of erstwhile innocent fetuses. But
>it is not clear that this is wrong.
You might still be able to get away with it in accordance with law,
but God does not run a democracy. And HE says no.
>> God will settle up with those that do such things one moment after
>> they take their final breath on this earth.
>Bullshit. There is no evidence of a specific god or final judgment.
There is only one God, and he said abortion is a sin with mortal and
eternal consequences.
>> >> - to butcher the life of
>> >> one's own unborn for one's own comfort and convenience.
>> >So what? Maybe one's own comfort and convenience is better than having
>> >another child to raise for several decades.
>> No kidding.
>I'm glad you agree.
What kind of animal such as you condones butchering one's own unborn
for one's comfort and convenience.
>> So your moral standards are that nonexistant?????
>No. I have quite a strong set of ethical standards, fuck you very much.
You have no ethical standards if you condone abortion.
>> What a loser you are.
>You better be talking to yourself in the mirror.
nope, I'm talking about you, quib.
>> Don't understand scripture, do you.
>Sure I do. I understand it better than you, as usual.
Not a chance, not if you condone butchering one's own unborn for one's
comfort and convenience.
>> Wow, this loser thinks human life is no more than what it can feel.
>That's not what I said. I just suggested that this might make it more
>palatable if rudimentary sensations were present. At various stages of
>development even that might not be the case.
It's human life.
>> Where does the bible profess that animals are not important?
>In dozens of places animals are wantonly killed and/or mistreated.
Where is it condoned?
>> >No kidding the consequences are "mortal". The fetus dies.
>> And so does the performer/participant.
>Not as a consequence of the action.
>> For all eternity to boot.
>If they are dead then they won't care.
That's only the human sensation characteristic. God awaits you on the
other side.
JTEM
"quibbler" <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Yep, he does illegally incite violence and every network that
> carried that message could be potentially liable.
Did you check out the bottom of his "authorized" web site? You
know, the web site with an article titled "Why shoot an abortionist?"
They ask for donations. They ask that you send your donations to
the "Glory to Jesus" Ministries.
Here's a quote from that story. Here's what you do if you want to
"Glorify" that Jesus:
"When I first appeared on Donahue, I asked the audience to
suspend judgment as to whether the action had been wise, but I
took the position that Griffin's killing of Dr. Gunn was justified.
I later realized, however, that using the force necessary to defend
the unborn gives credibility, urgency, and direction to the pro-life
movement which it has lacked and which it needs in order to
prevail."
http://www.armyofgod.com/PHillonepage.html
quibbler
duk...@earthlink.net says...
> On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 11:48:40 -0600, quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> >> The death penalty is for those that destroy the lives of others
>
> >> >What do you mean by "destroy the lives of other". Is this killing them
> >> >or other things in addition. Futhermore, upon what sources are you
> >> >basing this death penalty standard?
>
> >> The source is the law of the land,
>
> >The source of the law of the land is the constitution and it says nothing
> >about abortion.
>
> Doesn't matter.
Then why did you bring it up?
> If the law don't get you first, you will have to
> stand before God and answer for the things you did in the flesh.
Show immediate evidence for your ludicrous claim about God or retract.
>
> And abortion is strictly a no-no.
Not specifically according to the bible. But there are other strict no-
no, like not wearing garments with mixed fibers, not eating crayfish and
not seething a goat in it's mother's milk.
>
> >> and the penalty is akin to the
> >> crime.
>
> >That could mean a lot of things. From a biblical perspective it could
> >mean that gawd will not allow an abortion doctor to have children
> >himself.
>
> Or to die accordingly.
But there are alternatives, so you haven't shown that death is warranted.
>
> >There is no indication that Paul Hill is entitled to pass
> >judgment on other people.
>
> He has no such right at all. Hill was execututed in accordance with
> the law of this land. What his fate is before God nobody knows.
I glad to see you admit that his actions were wrong.
>
> >> >Many criminals can't live in society, but they can live in jail.
> >> Jail is to remove them from the society they show they can't live in.
>
> >No shit, moron.
>
> If you knew before, why didn't you say so.
No, in fact I did say so, fool. I said, "Many criminals can't live in
society, but they can live in jail. I made similar comments about my
personal standards for when I find the death penalty acceptable." It's
very obvious that I know that some criminals can't live in normal society
unless they are rehabilitated.
>
> > The point was that capital punishment is not the only
> >means to remove people from society who prove that they can't live in it.
> >So you will have to propose another criteria by which we can determine
> >which people get capital punishment and which do not.
>
> We already have such a system.
We have a capital punishment system that in 1972 was declared by the
supreme court to be too arbitrary to sentencing to qualify as anything
but cruel and unusual punishment. Since then some reforms and some
backslides have been made. However, you still have not demonstrated that
you know when capital punishment ought to be administered.
>
> > If you are saying
> >that anyone who kills must be killed then that standard is way to loose
> >and it would certainly include paul hill as someone worthy of death.
>
> Don't tell me. I don't stand in support of Hill.
No, you've rather ridiculously claimed that conservatives don't support
the pre or post natal taking of life, which is manifestly false.
>
> >> > I made
> >> >similar comments about my personal standards for when I find the death
> >> >penalty acceptable. However, I labelled it as my own opinion and I added
> >> >some reasonable qualifications which you have omitted. That's because
> >> >I'm honest and I think, unlike you.
> >> At least you think you do.
>
> >You would be confirming what I just said because I said "I think" and you
> >rather stupidly said that I think that I think, which would still be
> >thinking.
>
> Is the ice tea too sweet?
I see you're having one of your incoherent episodes. I'll come back to
this when you stop talking gibberish.
>
> >> >> Two more things:
> >> >> GBush2 didn't do it - a jury of their peers gave them "death".
> >> >That's beside the point.
> >> That is **THE** point.
>
> >No, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the point. George Bush was not
> >obligated to carry out those sentences.
>
> George Bush didn't carry out the sentence. The state did.
George Bush signs the orders, you stupid fucking asshole. As the chief
executive is is the legal representative for the state in the enforcement
of laws and criminal penalties. That is why he also has the power to
pardon or commute sentences. In essence he has the option to not carry
out criminal penalties against persons he deems worthy of pardon.
>
> > He has official power to pardon
> >or commute any sentence.
>
> Not without cause.
Yes, without cause.
> > Therefore, it does not matter that a jury gave
> >some of those people the death sentence, if that is in fact what
> >happened. It was very clear in many of the executions which boy georgie
> >allowed, that some serious irregularities had occurred.
>
> You don't understand the law, do you?
I very clearly do understand the law and that's why I am aware that
George Bush did not pay proper attention to very important procedural
details of the law.
>
> > But he didn't
> >pay any attention to them and therefore is probably guilty of executing
> >people for crimes they didn't commit.
>
> Bush didn't pull the switch.
And hitler didn't personally turn on gas in the gas chambers. However,
Bush, as chief executive bears ultimate responsibility for the laws being
carried out. That is his job, quite literally, as the leader of the
executive branch.
> The state did, and in strict accordance
> of the laws of the state which he as governor is obligated to allow to
> be carried out unless some underlying circumstances come to light.
He is under no such obligation. Provide your evidence immediately or
retract.
>
> But you don't undersand that.
You've just made an unsupported claim which is at variance with the known
facts. I understand that Bush very definitely has the power to pardon or
commute sentences and he does not need to justify his action in this
regard.
>
> >> > The governor could commute the sentences and in
> >> >many cases Bush failed to even properly review the sentences.
> >> How do you know?
> >Because I can read, fool. The executions that he allowed all have
> >associated court documents. In many cases his legal council failed to
> >point out standard instances in which the evidence may have been weak,
> >the defendant may not have had access to proper council, etc. These are
> >all things that should have at least been reviewed by Bush. But that
> >would have required a stay of execution. Bush only issued one stay of
> >execution out of all the executions he allowed from what I've heard.
>
> The juries said "guilty". Give him the chair.
That's only part of it. The juries are part of the judicial branch. The
law still has to be executed by a separate branch of government, of which
Bush is was the head.
>
> The state executes those people, not Bush.
The executive branch was responsible for the law being carried out. Bush
executed those people just as surely as saddam hussein executed people,
even if he did not personally perform the physical act in all cases.
>
> But you don't understand that, do you?
I understand that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
Bush was the leader of the branch of government who carried out
sentencing. Therefore he definitely did kill those people both by
commission and omission.
>
> > I say he did exactly what the governor is supposed
> >> to do.
>
> >You say incorrectly. He was not diligent enough about reviewing those
> >cases for standard legal irregularities.
> >http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0702-04.htm
> >That article shows the way that Bush's legal council biased bush, but in
> >any event, bush had an obligation to seek the truth. He cannot always
> >try to shift the blame onto someone else when he ultimately holds the
> >power.
>
> The jury had the truth.
You certainly can not and have not demonstrated that. Your suggestion
appears to be that the juries were infallible.
> They are the ones that said "guilty".
Even you know that this is not the only step in the process.
>
> >> Can you show otherwise?
>
> >Yes, I can show that he did not follow standard legal procedures which
> >many other governors did.
>
> I can fly, but getting somebody to believe me is a different thing.
People would certainly we well advised to not believe a moron like
yourself about virtually any topic.
> Can you show otherwise?
Can and did.
>
> > I can show that other governors were far more
> >diligent than bush.
>
> No you can't.
I sure can. The governor of Illinois ordered a much more thorough review
of their capital system at the same time that Bush was operating an
assembly line of slaughter in texas. There were other governors as well
that commuted all death sentences after discovering serious flaws in the
evidence and judicial reasoning behind some of the cases on their death
rows. All of these people showed more diligence than bush.
>
> >> >Still, you claimed that conservatives were opposed to taking of a life,
> >> >which is clearly false, particularly in the case of George W. Bush.
> >> Conservatives are opposed to taking *innocent* life.
>
> >That's not what you said originally. You said, "us conservatives that
> >stand opposed to taking life, both prebirth and postbirth." That doesn't
> >just suggest innocent life.
>
> Criminals found guilt of murder are **not innocent**.
They could be. The jury/court system may err in determining that they
are guilty. However, the point remains that you didn't mention this
innocent standard until relatively recently.
>
> > Furthermore, you still haven't said how
> >exactly you decide when someone deserves death or not.
>
> The jury decides that.
And how do they decide that? Is there are standard or is it completely
arbitrary? Come on. Show that you know something of substance for once.
>
> > According to your
> >religious doctrine nobody is entirely innocent, due to original sin.
> >That would include the pre-born.
>
> But what is your point?
Surely you should be able to grasp the point here. If preborns are not
innocent, due to original sin, then abortion is not the taking of
innocent life as you claimed. This would be yet another in a long list
of things which you have been wrong about in this very thread.
>
> > Are you just going to ignorantly punt
> >again and make some vague reference to the bible. The bible does not
> >include sufficiently specific guidelines on various issues from
> >euthanasia to abortion, for example.
>
> The bible is very specific for the new covenant. Love one another as
> I love you. Also: revence is mine, says the Lord.
That is not very specific at all with respect to abortion. You
apparently aren't even making an effort.
> > Furthermore, at various times the
> >bible seems to recommend contradictory behavior. For example, king saul
> >attempts to commit suicide according to some accounts and yet at other
> >places suicide is condemned.
>
> The bible is not contradictiory at all. Saul is not hte one to make
> the call on suicide.
You apparently are not familiar with the varying accounts. Saul fell on
his sword intentionally. Even if he didn't die instantly he attempted to
commit suicide. Furthermore, after he failed in his attempt he asked
others to finish the job, which is suicide by proxy.
>
> >For that matter jesus essentially commits
> >suicide by cop. If he was innocent of sin then his surrender to the
> >authorities amounted to the taking of his own innocent life.
>
> what a bunch of garbage.
The jesus myth is certainly garbage.
>
> > Moses
> >commits murder or incites murder on more than one occasion, when it is
> >not clear that the people he is killing deserve death.
>
> I gather the old covenant vs new covenant is over your head.
You don't gather anything. Jesus spoke highly of moses and the prophets
and even supposedly appeared with them in the form of apparitions.
Therefore it certainly matters whether Moses' acts of killing could be at
all justified.
>
> >> >In addition to all the lives that he bore ultimate responsibility for taking
> >> >in Texas, he also has the blood of hundreds of american soldiers and
> >> >thousands of Iraqi civilians on his filthy hands. In any event, that
> >> >makes you a liar.
> >> Nope. Juries condemn murderers.
>
> >And the governor is capable of pardoning.
>
> Not abritrarily he isn't.
He can pardon.
> He took an oath to obey and carry out the
> laws of the state.
The laws of the state include giving the governor the power to pardon or
commute sentences.
> And if the state says "to the chair", it's his job
> to not stand in the way unless a case can be made for an unfair
> decision.
Well, arguably he didn't even intervene when a cause could have been made
that several of the decisions were unfair. But actually, his job is to
modify any of those sentences as he sees fit. He is not bound by the
jury decision.
>
> > Therefore it makes no
> >difference in the final analysis what the jury decides, since the
> >governor can issue these pardons.
>
> Nope, not on a whim.
Yep, technically a whim on the part of the governor is sufficient for a
pardon. The only thing that matters is the pardon itself. The specific
reasoning behind the exercise of the power is another matter.
>
> >> As Commander in Chief, he is
> >> obligated by law to protect this country.
>
> >We're talking about when he was governor of texas, fool. In any event,
> >the president can also issue pardons for federal offenses.
>
> Not on a whim.
Fine, show me where in the Texas state constitution is says that governor
can pardon people, but "not on a whim".
>
> Are you sure you're old enough and knowledgable enough to be posting
> on the internet?
I'm certainly more knowledgeable than you are and there is no age
restriction in this case either.
>
> >> >> Abortion is the ultimate act of selfishness
> >> >Many conservatives argued that selfishness and greed were good things.
> >> >Cheney is a rather quintessential example. Where have you shown that
> >> >greed is bad?
> >> Abortion of the unborn innocent is murder
>
> >No. Murder is a legally defined concept and abortion is not illegal.
>
> Legally, by state/federal law, you're right, but only for now. We
> will get that changed eventually. It the most contraversial and hated
> law of the land. We are not thru with it.
Yawn.
>
> By the time youi get to be 18, we may have already gotten it reversed.
In that case I guess it must have been reversed more than a decade ago.
Show me the evidence or shut up.
>
> >I agree that abortion is killing, even of erstwhile innocent fetuses. But
> >it is not clear that this is wrong.
>
> You might still be able to get away with it in accordance with law,
> but God does not run a democracy. And HE says no.
Whenever you are challenged you can never actually produce a specific
statement by god that indicates any such thing.
>
> >> God will settle up with those that do such things one moment after
> >> they take their final breath on this earth.
>
> >Bullshit. There is no evidence of a specific god or final judgment.
>
> There is only one God, and he said abortion is a sin with mortal and
> eternal consequences.
Your continual argument by assertion remains false, despite your
repetition.
>
> >> >> - to butcher the life of
> >> >> one's own unborn for one's own comfort and convenience.
> >> >So what? Maybe one's own comfort and convenience is better than having
> >> >another child to raise for several decades.
> >> No kidding.
> >I'm glad you agree.
>
> What kind of animal such as you condones butchering one's own unborn
> for one's comfort and convenience.
You appear to have already answered your own poorly-posed, poorly
punctuated question. Humans are a type of animal and their population
must be managed for the good of us all.
>
> >> So your moral standards are that nonexistant?????
> >No. I have quite a strong set of ethical standards, fuck you very much.
>
> You have no ethical standards if you condone abortion.
Abortion is a very moral act in many cases and despite your non sequitur,
I maintain very high ethical standards.
>
> >> What a loser you are.
> >You better be talking to yourself in the mirror.
>
> nope, I'm talking about you, quib.
No, you must be talking to the mirror, because you're the only loser
around here.
>
> >> Don't understand scripture, do you.
> >Sure I do. I understand it better than you, as usual.
>
> Not a chance, not if you condone butchering one's own unborn for one's
> comfort and convenience.
I understand them just fine. They do not condemn abortion out of hand.
At best they describe some stages in the birth process.
>
> >> Wow, this loser thinks human life is no more than what it can feel.
>
> >That's not what I said. I just suggested that this might make it more
> >palatable if rudimentary sensations were present. At various stages of
> >development even that might not be the case.
>
> It's human life.
So is an adult being executed. You've apparently forgotten that
humanness is not the only standard.
>
> >> Where does the bible profess that animals are not important?
> >In dozens of places animals are wantonly killed and/or mistreated.
>
> Where is it condoned?
Where is it condoned that man should walk on the moon or see other
planets? It's not clear that it needs to be specifically condoned.
>
> >> >No kidding the consequences are "mortal". The fetus dies.
> >> And so does the performer/participant.
> >Not as a consequence of the action.
> >> For all eternity to boot.
> >If they are dead then they won't care.
>
> That's only the human sensation characteristic.
Wrong. Life is the sum total of existence. When you cease to live, you
cease to be.
> God awaits you on the
> other side.
No he doesn't. He is not there. There is only an empty chair where your
imaginary god reigns.
quibbler
quibb...@yahoo.com says...
Since I know you won't look it up, the relevant legal standard in the
texas constitution says, "In all criminal cases, except treason and
impeachment, the Governor shall have power, after conviction, on the
written signed recommendation and advice of the Board of Pardons and
Paroles, or a majority thereof, to grant reprieves and commutations of
punishment and pardons". Therefore, you are definitely wrong that Bush
is bound by the decisions of the jury. While the board of pardons also
has power, a fact which you displayed on knowledge of, either the board
or the governor could very definitely act on whim. They could decide to
pardon someone purely because the board and the governor liked that
person. Given a recommendation of the pardons board bush could also act
on the whim to pardon or not to pardon. He is not required to pardon
based on recommendations and he can seek the recommendations of the
pardon board by granting a reprieve (which does not have to be justified
either). Also, as Kate Randall pointed out in june of 2000, "Although
under Texas state law the governor can only commute a death sentence if
it is recommended by the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, all of the
members of the board are Bush appointees and he could undoubtedly
influence them to recommended a pardon. "
In any event, I am not asking Bush to act based upon whim. I'm asking
him to take his responsibility seriously and vigorously review all
capital cases, which he is reported to have not done to any serious
extent. Anyway, unlike the crap you've been spewing, those are the
actual facts.
JTEM
"duke32" <duk...@earthlink.net> wrote
> The death penalty is for those that destroy the lives of others
> and who clearly show they can't live in society.
Especially if they're black.
JTEM
"quibbler" <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > http://www.theabortionabolitionist.com/PaulHillIssue.htm
> Fanatic, murdering terrorists like John Brown are a perfect
> illustration that the ends do not justify the means.
Unfortunately, he's also the "perfect" role model for the Christian
right-to-life movement. Well, at least they appear to think so.
JTEM
"quibbler" <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote
> He lyingly claims that he wanted to die. But I bet if someone
> gave him the real prospect of going free that he would have
> taken it.
He didn't want consequences, he wanted reward.
Prion life wasn't a reward.
I don't doubt for a moment that this man wanted a martyr to
seal his call for Jihad.
> He didn't file any special appeals, but then there really
> wasn't much basis for him to appeal.
Other than the fact that he's completely nuts?
JTEM
"Elroy Willis" <e...@airmail.net> wrote
> I guess we should consider ourselves lucky that people
> like him don't strap bombs on themselves, walk into
> abortion clinics, and blow themselves up, killing and
> injuring a lot more people than he did.
Five years, tops.
Especially now that they know that martyrs are granted news
conferences...
Elroy Willis
> "Elroy Willis" <e...@airmail.net> wrote
> Five years, tops.
There'd be no martyr left to talk to anyone if things get to
that point, which I can only hope they don't.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
duke32
wrote:
>> >> >What do you mean by "destroy the lives of other". Is this killing them
>> >> >or other things in addition. Futhermore, upon what sources are you
>> >> >basing this death penalty standard?
>> >> The source is the law of the land,
>> >The source of the law of the land is the constitution and it says nothing
>> >about abortion.
>> Doesn't matter.
>Then why did you bring it up?
Oh, I'm sorry, did that one slip by your head?
You have bigger and more permanent things to worry about than the law
of the land.
>> If the law don't get you first, you will have to
>> stand before God and answer for the things you did in the flesh.
>Show immediate evidence for your ludicrous claim about God or retract.
Posted many times on this ng.
>> And abortion is strictly a no-no.
>Not specifically according to the bible. But there are other strict no-
>no, like not wearing garments with mixed fibers, not eating crayfish and
>not seething a goat in it's mother's milk.
Gee, and the bible doesn't clearly say that the sun will shine on
Sundays, either.
Matthew 25:31-46 should help you.
>> >That could mean a lot of things. From a biblical perspective it could
>> >mean that gawd will not allow an abortion doctor to have children
>> >himself.
>> Or to die accordingly.
>But there are alternatives, so you haven't shown that death is warranted.
Doesn't matter - it's not my call anyway. But the message is clear.
>> >There is no indication that Paul Hill is entitled to pass
>> >judgment on other people.
>> He has no such right at all. Hill was execututed in accordance with
>> the law of this land. What his fate is before God nobody knows.
>I glad to see you admit that his actions were wrong.
No one has a right to take the life of another - be he a grownup or an
unborn human life.
>> >> >Many criminals can't live in society, but they can live in jail.
>> >> Jail is to remove them from the society they show they can't live in.
>> >No shit, moron.
>> If you knew before, why didn't you say so.
>No, in fact I did say so, fool. I said, "Many criminals can't live in
>society, but they can live in jail. I made similar comments about my
>personal standards for when I find the death penalty acceptable." It's
>very obvious that I know that some criminals can't live in normal society
>unless they are rehabilitated.
We must agree then.
>> > The point was that capital punishment is not the only
>> >means to remove people from society who prove that they can't live in it.
>> >So you will have to propose another criteria by which we can determine
>> >which people get capital punishment and which do not.
>> We already have such a system.
>We have a capital punishment system that in 1972 was declared by the
>supreme court to be too arbitrary to sentencing to qualify as anything
>but cruel and unusual punishment. Since then some reforms and some
>backslides have been made. However, you still have not demonstrated that
>you know when capital punishment ought to be administered.
I don't have to. The courts cover that.
>> > If you are saying
>> >that anyone who kills must be killed then that standard is way to loose
>> >and it would certainly include paul hill as someone worthy of death.
>> Don't tell me. I don't stand in support of Hill.
>No, you've rather ridiculously claimed that conservatives don't support
>the pre or post natal taking of life, which is manifestly false.
It's not false. All conservatives I know are against the death
penalty and abortion.
Of course, I have an upper hand. We are all Christian.
>> >You would be confirming what I just said because I said "I think" and you
>> >rather stupidly said that I think that I think, which would still be
>> >thinking.
>> Is the ice tea too sweet?
>I see you're having one of your incoherent episodes. I'll come back to
>this when you stop talking gibberish.
Cut back on the sweets and you might be better at conversing.
>> George Bush didn't carry out the sentence. The state did.
>George Bush signs the orders, you stupid fucking asshole.
His job is to sign the papers. The people make the judgement, and he
has to authorize it in accordance with the law.
> As the chief
>executive is is the legal representative for the state in the enforcement
>of laws and criminal penalties. That is why he also has the power to
>pardon or commute sentences. In essence he has the option to not carry
>out criminal penalties against persons he deems worthy of pardon.
But no right to override the people's decision unless there's an
overriding consideration at hand.
Don't you understand these very basic facts about the laws?
No I guess not.
>> > He has official power to pardon
>> >or commute any sentence.
>> Not without cause.
>Yes, without cause.
Wrong. He's elected to carry out the laws of the people.
>> > Therefore, it does not matter that a jury gave
>> >some of those people the death sentence, if that is in fact what
>> >happened. It was very clear in many of the executions which boy georgie
>> >allowed, that some serious irregularities had occurred.
>> You don't understand the law, do you?
>I very clearly do understand the law and that's why I am aware that
>George Bush did not pay proper attention to very important procedural
>details of the law.
No, there's no chance that you understand the law.
>> > But he didn't
>> >pay any attention to them and therefore is probably guilty of executing
>> >people for crimes they didn't commit.
>> Bush didn't pull the switch.
>And hitler didn't personally turn on gas in the gas chambers. However,
>Bush, as chief executive bears ultimate responsibility for the laws being
>carried out.
Yes, now you got it. And he is tasked with carrying out the legal
statements of the people as the elected governor.
> That is his job, quite literally, as the leader of the
>executive branch.
Finally, you're beginning to understand.
>> The state did, and in strict accordance
>> of the laws of the state which he as governor is obligated to allow to
>> be carried out unless some underlying circumstances come to light.
>He is under no such obligation. Provide your evidence immediately or
>retract.
You're the one going against the law. Provide your evidence
immediately or retract.
>> But you don't undersand that.
>
>You've just made an unsupported claim which is at variance with the known
>facts. I understand that Bush very definitely has the power to pardon or
>commute sentences and he does not need to justify his action in this
>regard.
The hell he doesn't. I take it back - you have no idea what the law
says.
>That's only part of it. The juries are part of the judicial branch. The
>law still has to be executed by a separate branch of government, of which
>Bush is was the head.
Right, that's his job - to carry out the will of the people in
accordance with the law.
>> The state executes those people, not Bush.
>The executive branch was responsible for the law being carried out. Bush
>executed those people just as surely as saddam hussein executed people,
>even if he did not personally perform the physical act in all cases.
Sorry.
>> But you don't understand that, do you?
>I understand that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
>Bush was the leader of the branch of government who carried out
>sentencing. Therefore he definitely did kill those people both by
>commission and omission.
In accordance with the law, the will of the people, and his position
he was elected by the people to fulfill.
Can you not grasp that fact?
>> The jury had the truth.
>You certainly can not and have not demonstrated that. Your suggestion
>appears to be that the juries were infallible.
No, you're the one that has demonstrated that you have no idea of the
purpose of elected officials.
Juries are not infallible. And that's where a governor can override
the will of the people, when the case is made for an error to execute.
>> The jury decides that.
>And how do they decide that? Is there are standard or is it completely
>arbitrary? Come on. Show that you know something of substance for once.
All I have to do is point our your words, and that shows you don't
comprehend.
>> > According to your
>> >religious doctrine nobody is entirely innocent, due to original sin.
>> >That would include the pre-born.
>> But what is your point?
>Surely you should be able to grasp the point here. If preborns are not
>innocent, due to original sin, then abortion is not the taking of
>innocent life as you claimed.
The sin is against God. Abortion is an action by people with no ties
to the sin against God.
>> The bible is not contradictiory at all. Saul is not hte one to make
>> the call on suicide.
>You apparently are not familiar with the varying accounts. Saul fell on
>his sword intentionally. Even if he didn't die instantly he attempted to
>commit suicide. Furthermore, after he failed in his attempt he asked
>others to finish the job, which is suicide by proxy.
And this means it's not a sin against God...............why?
>The jesus myth is certainly garbage.
Are you one of those people that professes the mythical fable there is
no God or Jesus without so much as one shred of evidence to support
it?
>> > Moses
>> >commits murder or incites murder on more than one occasion, when it is
>> >not clear that the people he is killing deserve death.
>> I gather the old covenant vs new covenant is over your head.
>You don't gather anything. Jesus spoke highly of moses and the prophets
>and even supposedly appeared with them in the form of apparitions.
>Therefore it certainly matters whether Moses' acts of killing could be at
>all justified.
Jesus spoke well of all peoples, regardless of their shortcomings.
>> Nope, not on a whim.
>Yep, technically a whim on the part of the governor is sufficient for a
>pardon.
Nope.
>> Are you sure you're old enough and knowledgable enough to be posting
>> on the internet?
>I'm certainly more knowledgeable than you are and there is no age
>restriction in this case either.
No, you're clearly not more knowledgeable than I am, and it shows in
your immature understanding of the world.
duke32
wrote:
>Since I know you won't look it up, the relevant legal standard in the
>texas constitution says, "In all criminal cases, except treason and
>impeachment, the Governor shall have power, after conviction, on the
>written signed recommendation and advice of the Board of Pardons and
>Paroles, or a majority thereof, to grant reprieves and commutations of
>punishment and pardons".
I gather you don't understand the words "signed written recommendation
and advice of".
Better luck next time, quib, you and your "whim" statement.
I simply love it when you junior space cadets cut your own throats.
duke32
>> The death penalty is for those that destroy the lives of others
>> and who clearly show they can't live in society.
>Especially if they're black.
You do the crime, you do the time, even up to the time of the chair.
If 12% of a group commits 85% of the crime, that's a statistic, not a
racial consideration.
quibbler
Like I say, they're not the only people who can pick up a gun or build a
pipe bomb. There are a lot more churches than there are abortion clinics
too, so it would probably be advisable for them to think very carefully
about who they mess with. It would be a tragedy if they and their 12
kids and their hilly-billy cousins/wives got blown to smithereens when
they walked out of church.
quibbler
duk...@earthlink.net says...
> On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 23:33:39 -0600, quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Since I know you won't look it up, the relevant legal standard in the
> >texas constitution says, "In all criminal cases, except treason and
> >impeachment, the Governor shall have power, after conviction, on the
> >written signed recommendation and advice of the Board of Pardons and
> >Paroles, or a majority thereof, to grant reprieves and commutations of
> >punishment and pardons".
>
> I gather you don't understand the words "signed written recommendation
> and advice of".
Again, you gather nothing. I'm the one who provided the reference, not
you, and I certainly understand what it says. Nowhere does it say that
the signed, written recommendation has to be given for any specific or
non-whimsical reason. The members of the board could just make the
recommendation because they liked the guy.
>
> Better luck next time, quib, you and your "whim" statement.
You're the one who raised the red herring of whims. I didn't say that
George Bush should actually pardon someone on a whim. I said correctly
that he *could* pardon on a whim, but not that he *should*. Bush
definitely can issue a pardon for whatever reason he likes. That doesn't
mean that a process may not have to first be conducted. I am the one who
pointed out that he needs the cooperation of the pardon board, not you,
but that still does not alter the fact that he can issue the pardon
without having to justify his actions. The pardon board can act on whim
and so can he, though it will become a matter of public record if they do
so. You apparently do not understand the plain meaning of the English
language. I was honest enough to post the exact wording from the Texas
constitution, whereas you just made vague, unsupported assertions. You
even confused Bush's role as federal commander in chief versus being the
chief executive of texas. The text clearly showed that bush does not
have to make any case for his pardoning or show that the jury decision
was unfair. He only has to have the recommendation of the pardon board,
which itself can act on whim, just as he can. All of this is undeniable
and only an idiot like yourself would even try to deny it.
>
> I simply love it when you junior space cadets cut your own throats.
You're the only space cadet. I post evidence honestly quoted evidence
which you yourself have failed to provide and you try to gloat as though
this is some big coup for you. The information that I posted showed that
many of statements with respect to pardons were correct, whereas your own
assertions were wrong. You're just too dumb to recognize it. You rather
conveniently ignored your own erroneous assertions about pardons and now
persist in wrongly maintaining that the decision to pardon cannot be
whimsical. I admitted up front that the pardon board has to act -- a
fact which you showed *no* knowledge of whatsoever in this post before *I
told* you. But none of that means that either bush or board have to act
for any legal reasons. It can be purely because of whim. Furthermore,
that is a complete diversion anyway. I never said that Bush ought to
have acted on whim. Clearly he should only act when he has good reason
to think that the person is innocent. However, if his buddy kenny lay
were on death row then he could tell the pardon board that he wanted them
to spare him and he could sign the pardon, all without any legal
justification. Neither he, nor any member of the board is compelled to
respect the sentencing opinion of the jury, as you claimed, nor to show
that Kenny lay actually deserves to be spared.
You said,
"He took an oath to obey and carry out the laws of the state. And if the
state says 'to the chair', it's his job to not stand in the way *unless a
case can be made for an unfair decision.*"
In fact this is false, as my quote proved. There is nothing in the texas
constitutional statute which requires bush or the pardon board to show
that kenny lay, or anyone else was sentenced unfairly if they want to
issue a pardon. In actual fact his decision can be made for any number
of whimsical reasons. The fact that the constitution was amended to
require the recommendation of the pardon board does not mean that he
can't agree with their recommendation for whimsical reasons. As I
pointed out, all the pardon board members are bush appointees. So under
one scenario he could get a whim to pardon someone, and then instruct the
pardon board to rubber stamp his decision. Therefore I have absolutely
proven that he *could* get a pardon on a whim, at least in theory. I do
not have to prove that all pardons can be done in a whimsical fashion,
but only that at least one could and I have done this. I also very
clearly said that this was a technicality when I said, "technically a
whim on the part of the governor is sufficient" as a justification for
the pardon. I agree that he may have to go through other processes as
well, but this makes it no less arbitrary from the point of view of his
decision to grant the pardon if the recommendation gets to him.
A president or governor can also veto bills arbitrarily. Of course the
bills have to achieve sufficient votes to make it to him, just as
recommendations may have to be issued from the pardon board. But that
would neither make the decision to veto nor the decision to exercise his
specified pardon power one that he cannot exercise for any arbitrary or
whimsical reasons. In fact, bush's power to pardon is greater than his
power to veto, since bush does not appoint the legislature. But in both
cases his decision to act on what he is sent is entirely up to his
discretion.
If you want to get super technical then bush can issue any pardon he
wants, but it just won't be legally binding unless the pardon board
concurs in the majority opinion. So, in fact, you have no legs to stand
on at all here. Oh, and don't lecture me about technicalities, because
that is just the way that the law works.
OTOH you said, he could not pardon "unless a case can be made for an
unfair decision", which is nowhere contained in the actual legal
standard. Rather than wait for you to provide any evidence to back up
your dubious claim, which you seldom if ever have been known to do
anyway, I went directly to the text of the constitution and provided the
standard which proved my point. But I should have expected that you
would be too dumb to actually understand the plain meaning of the words
written in it. This ain't like the bible where they might be using
figurative language or something. It nowhere says in the text cited that
they can't pardon, unless a "case can be made for an unfair decision".
The pardon can be made for very arbitrary and unfair reasons. Therfore I
was technically right on my point and you were manifestly wrong on your
assertion. So sit down and shut the fuck up, dumb ass.
quibbler
duk...@earthlink.net says...
> On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 01:37:25 -0400, "JTEM" <jay...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> The death penalty is for those that destroy the lives of others
> >> and who clearly show they can't live in society.
> >Especially if they're black.
>
> You do the crime, you do the time, even up to the time of the chair.
>
> If 12% of a group commits 85% of the crime, that's a statistic, not a
> racial consideration.
The statistic that matters, moron, is that many black people who have
committed the same types of crimes as whites, can end up with higher
numbers of more severe sentences or even the death penalty. In the south
it used to be quite common for black people to get far harsher sentences
than whites for the same crime. In particular, a black man raping a
white woman was often regarded as a capital offense, whereas it was not
the case for a white man raping a white woman. Before sentencing
guidelines became more standardized, all kinds of potentially unequal
sentencing policies were possible.
quibbler
duk...@earthlink.net says...
> On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 22:39:08 -0600, quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> >> >What do you mean by "destroy the lives of other". Is this killing them
> >> >> >or other things in addition. Futhermore, upon what sources are you
> >> >> >basing this death penalty standard?
> >> >> The source is the law of the land,
>
> >> >The source of the law of the land is the constitution and it says nothing
> >> >about abortion.
> >> Doesn't matter.
> >Then why did you bring it up?
>
> Oh, I'm sorry, did that one slip by your head?
No, but your brain appears to have slipped out your ass. You better try
to shove it back in before someone flushes it.
> You have bigger and more permanent things to worry about than the law
> of the land.
You have no evidence as usual.
>
> >> If the law don't get you first, you will have to
> >> stand before God and answer for the things you did in the flesh.
> >Show immediate evidence for your ludicrous claim about God or retract.
>
> Posted many times on this ng.
Then it ought to be easy for you to cite a few of them. BTW, you better
have good evidence, rather than mere assertions as you have routines
offered throughout this thread.
>
> >> And abortion is strictly a no-no.
>
> >Not specifically according to the bible. But there are other strict no-
> >no, like not wearing garments with mixed fibers, not eating crayfish and
> >not seething a goat in it's mother's milk.
>
> Gee, and the bible doesn't clearly say that the sun will shine on
> Sundays, either.
Actually genesis 1 does state, "God made two great lights-the greater
light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also
made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light
on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light
from darkness." That suggests that it should shine to some extent every
day. Of course revelation 6:12 says, "The sun turned black like
sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red". However,
even if that happened on a sunday, it would emit some light unless it was
a perfect black body, which would mean that it would still shine. Since
the moon is illuminated by the sun, the fact that it turned red also
suggests that it was shining somewhat. Plus, John wouldn't have been
able to see if there was no light coming from the sun at all. Plus, the
hebrews wouldn't define a day like sunday as starting unless the sun came
up and shined. Therefore your claim appears rather dubious. Too bad you
don't know your own bible very well.
>
> Matthew 25:31-46 should help you.
>
> >> >That could mean a lot of things. From a biblical perspective it could
> >> >mean that gawd will not allow an abortion doctor to have children
> >> >himself.
> >> Or to die accordingly.
> >But there are alternatives, so you haven't shown that death is warranted.
>
> Doesn't matter - it's not my call anyway. But the message is clear.
No the message is not clear, especially when the penalty is handed out
inconsistently, as it still sometimes is. It's not even clear that the
death penalty needs to exist as a punishment at the present time.
>
> >> >There is no indication that Paul Hill is entitled to pass
> >> >judgment on other people.
> >> He has no such right at all. Hill was execututed in accordance with
> >> the law of this land. What his fate is before God nobody knows.
> >I glad to see you admit that his actions were wrong.
>
> No one has a right to take the life of another - be he a grownup or an
> unborn human life.
Where does the bible make this statement? Moses and joshua take the
lives of many people as do some of the apostles.
>
> >> >> >Many criminals can't live in society, but they can live in jail.
> >> >> Jail is to remove them from the society they show they can't live in.
> >> >No shit, moron.
> >> If you knew before, why didn't you say so.
>
> >No, in fact I did say so, fool. I said, "Many criminals can't live in
> >society, but they can live in jail. I made similar comments about my
> >personal standards for when I find the death penalty acceptable." It's
> >very obvious that I know that some criminals can't live in normal society
> >unless they are rehabilitated.
>
> We must agree then.
We only agree so far that criminals can be put in jail as a way of
getting them out of free society. We both knew that before we started.
Yeah, even a dumbshit like you presumably knew that.
>
> >> > The point was that capital punishment is not the only
> >> >means to remove people from society who prove that they can't live in it.
> >> >So you will have to propose another criteria by which we can determine
> >> >which people get capital punishment and which do not.
> >> We already have such a system.
>
> >We have a capital punishment system that in 1972 was declared by the
> >supreme court to be too arbitrary to sentencing to qualify as anything
> >but cruel and unusual punishment. Since then some reforms and some
> >backslides have been made. However, you still have not demonstrated that
> >you know when capital punishment ought to be administered.
>
> I don't have to. The courts cover that.
You need to demonstrate that you understand what general process the
court uses, or it is not clear that you can know that the court truly
covers it. You may be mistaken, which is a very common occurrence in
your case.
>
> >> > If you are saying
> >> >that anyone who kills must be killed then that standard is way to loose
> >> >and it would certainly include paul hill as someone worthy of death.
> >> Don't tell me. I don't stand in support of Hill.
>
> >No, you've rather ridiculously claimed that conservatives don't support
> >the pre or post natal taking of life, which is manifestly false.
>
> It's not false. All conservatives I know are against the death
> penalty and abortion.
That is insufficient to demonstrate your point, particularly because you
may not even known any other conservatives. Try again.
>
> Of course, I have an upper hand. We are all Christian.
yawn. The standard expression is "The upper hand" not "an upper hand".
>
> >> >You would be confirming what I just said because I said "I think" and you
> >> >rather stupidly said that I think that I think, which would still be
> >> >thinking.
> >> Is the ice tea too sweet?
> >I see you're having one of your incoherent episodes. I'll come back to
> >this when you stop talking gibberish.
>
> Cut back on the sweets and you might be better at conversing.
It sounds like you are trying to project your terrible conversational
abilities onto me. I can understand that you might wish to employ a
defensive coping mechanism such as that, but it really isn't warranted.
You need to deal with your many manifest mental problems.
>
> >> George Bush didn't carry out the sentence. The state did.
>
> >George Bush signs the orders, you stupid fucking asshole.
>
> His job is to sign the papers. The people make the judgement, and he
> has to authorize it in accordance with the law.
He can sign any piece of paper he wants. He can authorize the pardon for
any reason he wants. He is not bound to always follow the sentence of a
jury in all cases. Furthermore, whether he follows the will of the jury
or not, he is still has full responsibility for the actions he takes. In
china or india, the law allegedly requires forced sterilizations or even
forced abortions in some cases. One would be no less guilty of carrying
these actions out simply because the law said to do it. On the highest
level, the chief executive is responsible for everything that occurs
under the law.
> > As the chief
> >executive is is the legal representative for the state in the enforcement
> >of laws and criminal penalties. That is why he also has the power to
> >pardon or commute sentences. In essence he has the option to not carry
> >out criminal penalties against persons he deems worthy of pardon.
>
> But no right to override the people's decision unless there's an
> overriding consideration at hand.
He does have the right to override the people's decision and it's not
clear what "overriding consideration" you are talking about, if you even
know yourself.
>
> Don't you understand these very basic facts about the laws?
I understand more than just the basic facts. You have no facts on the
matter (other than the ones I have given to you).
>
> No I guess not.
You guess wrong.
>
> >> > He has official power to pardon
> >> >or commute any sentence.
> >> Not without cause.
> >Yes, without cause.
>
> Wrong. He's elected to carry out the laws of the people.
The laws of people are first and foremost the constitution, which allows
him to grant a pardon as he (and the pardon board) see fit. Neither he,
nor the pardon board have to honor the decisions made by a jury. Instead,
the whole purpose of the pardoning process is to overrule the will of
particular juries. If that did not occur then no pardons could actually
be granted.
>
> >> > Therefore, it does not matter that a jury gave
> >> >some of those people the death sentence, if that is in fact what
> >> >happened. It was very clear in many of the executions which boy georgie
> >> >allowed, that some serious irregularities had occurred.
> >> You don't understand the law, do you?
> >I very clearly do understand the law and that's why I am aware that
> >George Bush did not pay proper attention to very important procedural
> >details of the law.
>
> No, there's no chance that you understand the law.
It's not a matter of chance. I do understand "the law".
>
> >> > But he didn't
> >> >pay any attention to them and therefore is probably guilty of executing
> >> >people for crimes they didn't commit.
> >> Bush didn't pull the switch.
>
> >And hitler didn't personally turn on gas in the gas chambers. However,
> >Bush, as chief executive bears ultimate responsibility for the laws being
> >carried out.
>
> Yes, now you got it.
I always had it. You said earlier, "GBush2 didn't do it". That would be
like saying that Hitler didn't massacre millions of jews. Of course he
did it, because he is the one with the ultimate responsibility and could
have potentially stopped it. Bush does not appear to have even tried to
stop a great number of executions.
> And he is tasked with carrying out the legal
> statements of the people as the elected governor.
The laws include the ability to pardon or commute. Bush received over
464 recommendations for pardon and approved 16 of them, almost
exclusively for minor offenses. Those whom he did pardon include a woman
who stole an xmas wreath from her neighbor's yard. Coincidentally George
Bush was convicted of doing the same thing as a fraternity prank. Now,
of course, the law is the law, and if you are right then bush has no
right to excuse this woman, particularly if he merely acted out of
sympathy for the woman and not the law. BTW, dubya was also "pardoned"
for his action, since he was a well-connected, rich motherfucker. Don't
tell me that you knew that little detail.
> > That is his job, quite literally, as the leader of the
> >executive branch.
>
> Finally, you're beginning to understand.
I 've never denied that bush "bears ultimate responsibility for the laws
being carried out". I've only pointed out, quite correctly, that he can
pardon people and thereby circumvent certain legal requirements. Bush's
responsibility includes carrying out executions, which makes him
responsible for the death that occurs, whether he actually pushes the
button or not. If he were opposed to this action, as you claim "us
conservatives" are then he should have and could have resigned. Even if
he couldn't stop the execution, he would bear responsibility for it,
since he is the chief executive. All the execution deaths in Texas
during his term are on bush's head. Nobody forced bush to take the job.
You seem to be maintaining in a rather NAZI-esque way that as long as
bush is following the orders of the jury that it's not his fault for
acting on them, even if the jury ends up being wrong about it's
assessment of guilt. That would be like arguing that you're not
responsible for shooting someone because your friend told you to do it.
Bush could have always resigned to avoid responsibility for executions.
Therefore Bush willingly carried out those executions contrary to your
idiotic claim that, "us conservatives that stand opposed to taking life,
both prebirth and postbirth." Bush didn't even avail himself of the
opportunity to object to the taking of life that occurred in each one of
these cases.
>
> >> The state did, and in strict accordance
> >> of the laws of the state which he as governor is obligated to allow to
> >> be carried out unless some underlying circumstances come to light.
> >He is under no such obligation. Provide your evidence immediately or
> >retract.
> You're the one going against the law. Provide your evidence
> immediately or retract.
I provided evidence that he can pardon which proves that he is not
obligated to carry out some laws, even if "underlying circumstances"
never "come to light" with respect to the pardons he issues. He is also
allowed to issue temporary reprieves with no consultation and therefore
again avoids being obligated to carry out the exact details of certain
laws, at least at the exact times required. So, while I was not required
to provide evidence, I did and you did not. Therefore I win and you
lose.
>
> >> But you don't undersand that.
> >
> >You've just made an unsupported claim which is at variance with the known
> >facts. I understand that Bush very definitely has the power to pardon or
> >commute sentences and he does not need to justify his action in this
> >regard.
>
> The hell he doesn't. I take it back - you have no idea what the law
> says.
Your ignorant opinion means nothing. I've demonstrated in many specific
ways that I know far more about the law than you do.
>
> >That's only part of it. The juries are part of the judicial branch. The
> >law still has to be executed by a separate branch of government, of which
> >Bush is was the head.
>
> Right, that's his job - to carry out the will of the people in
> accordance with the law.
You've missed the point, as usual. Because he has to carry out the law,
he bears responsibility for all those actions specified in the law that
he carries out. If his job is to carry out the law then you can't say
it's not his fault that the law was carried out. Of course it is his
fault because he was the one in charge of doing it. It doesn't matter if
he made the law or not. He chose to accept a job where he was required
to carry out the law and therefore bears responsibility for any stupid or
immoral action which the law states must be done. He does not bear full
responsibility, perhaps, but he bears ultimate responsibility for actions
including the execution of people. The minor point that bush can also
issue pardons that circumvent the law is merely a technicality which you
erroneously chose to ignore.
>
> >> The state executes those people, not Bush.
> >The executive branch was responsible for the law being carried out. Bush
> >executed those people just as surely as saddam hussein executed people,
> >even if he did not personally perform the physical act in all cases.
>
> Sorry.
Apology accepted. But you're still wrong that "us conservatives that
stand opposed to taking life, both prebirth and postbirth." Bush is a
conservative and he did not stand opposed to taking all those lives in
texas.
>
> >> But you don't understand that, do you?
> >I understand that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
> >Bush was the leader of the branch of government who carried out
> >sentencing. Therefore he definitely did kill those people both by
> >commission and omission.
>
> In accordance with the law, the will of the people, and his position
> he was elected by the people to fulfill.
That really doesn't matter. You've obviously gone off on some type of
fallacious tangent whereby you incorrectly imagine you can excuse bush's
action as "just following the law" or some such irrelevant alibi.
>
> Can you not grasp that fact?
It's you who hasn't grasped the implications of this fact. I'm not
surprised.
>
> >> The jury had the truth.
> >You certainly can not and have not demonstrated that. Your suggestion
> >appears to be that the juries were infallible.
>
> No, you're the one that has demonstrated that you have no idea of the
> purpose of elected officials.
To the contrary, I have states far more precisely than you have the role
of elected officials.
>
> Juries are not infallible. And that's where a governor can override
> the will of the people, when the case is made for an error to execute.
They do not have to make a case that an "error to execute" occurred. The
person being pardoned may well deserve the punishment in a legal sense
and a jury or judge may well have correctly assigned that punishment.
>
> >> The jury decides that.
> >And how do they decide that? Is there are standard or is it completely
> >arbitrary? Come on. Show that you know something of substance for once.
>
> All I have to do is point our your words, and that shows you don't
> comprehend.
LOL! Naturally you didn't point to any here :).
>
> >> > According to your
> >> >religious doctrine nobody is entirely innocent, due to original sin.
> >> >That would include the pre-born.
> >> But what is your point?
> >Surely you should be able to grasp the point here. If preborns are not
> >innocent, due to original sin, then abortion is not the taking of
> >innocent life as you claimed.
>
> The sin is against God.
That unevidenced assertion has no bearing on what I was saying. You
claimed that it was wrong to take innocent life and I demonstrated that
according to some church doctrine a fetus would not be "innocent". Now
you have moved the goal post yet again with some new allegation that you
know the mind of god and that he considers abortion a sin against
himself.
> Abortion is an action by people with no ties
> to the sin against God.
Your statement is gibberish. If you are claiming that only atheists
perform abortions then you are certainly wrong.
>
> >> The bible is not contradictiory at all. Saul is not hte one to make
> >> the call on suicide.
>
> >You apparently are not familiar with the varying accounts. Saul fell on
> >his sword intentionally. Even if he didn't die instantly he attempted to
> >commit suicide. Furthermore, after he failed in his attempt he asked
> >others to finish the job, which is suicide by proxy.
>
> And this means it's not a sin against God...............why?
That's not the point, you fool. You obviously don't know what Saul's
title was. He was literally referred to as "messiah" or "god's
anointed". Apparently god's anointed committed suicide, which doesn't
speak highly for god as a judge of character.
>
> >The jesus myth is certainly garbage.
>
> Are you one of those people that professes the mythical fable there is
> no God or Jesus without so much as one shred of evidence to support
> it?
I profess the fact that there is no legitimate evidence for your god's
existence any you have yet to provide anything that might challenge this.
>
> >> > Moses
> >> >commits murder or incites murder on more than one occasion, when it is
> >> >not clear that the people he is killing deserve death.
> >> I gather the old covenant vs new covenant is over your head.
>
> >You don't gather anything. Jesus spoke highly of moses and the prophets
> >and even supposedly appeared with them in the form of apparitions.
> >Therefore it certainly matters whether Moses' acts of killing could be at
> >all justified.
>
> Jesus spoke well of all peoples, regardless of their shortcomings.
Except maybe some of the sadducees and pharisees, which is somewhat
ironic, since he aped much of his theology from them.
>
> >> Nope, not on a whim.
> >Yep, technically a whim on the part of the governor is sufficient for a
> >pardon.
>
> Nope.
Yep, a proven fact. As much as a veto can be done on a whim, a pardon
can be done on a whim.
>
> >> Are you sure you're old enough and knowledgable enough to be posting
> >> on the internet?
> >I'm certainly more knowledgeable than you are and there is no age
> >restriction in this case either.
>
> No, you're clearly not more knowledgeable than I am, and it shows in
> your immature understanding of the world.
LOL. That's why you believe in magic fairies and talking snakes and all
kinds of childish nonsense, whereas I am firmly grounded in reality.
JTEM
"duke32" <duk...@earthlink.net> wrote
> If 12% of a group commits 85% of the crime, that's a statistic,
> not a racial consideration.
Your "Statistics" (if they're even real) are regarding convictions,
not crimes.
duke32
wrote:
>> >Since I know you won't look it up, the relevant legal standard in the
>> >texas constitution says, "In all criminal cases, except treason and
>> >impeachment, the Governor shall have power, after conviction, on the
>> >written signed recommendation and advice of the Board of Pardons and
>> >Paroles, or a majority thereof, to grant reprieves and commutations of
>> >punishment and pardons".
>> I gather you don't understand the words "signed written recommendation
>> and advice of".
>Again, you gather nothing. I'm the one who provided the reference, not
>you, and I certainly understand what it says. Nowhere does it say that
>the signed, written recommendation has to be given for any specific or
>non-whimsical reason. The members of the board could just make the
>recommendation because they liked the guy.
Again, you nailed yourself. I gather you don't understand the words
"signed written recommendation and advice of".
After his "advisers" advise him to rethink the sentence, then he is
called to consider otherwise.
>> Better luck next time, quib, you and your "whim" statement.
>You're the one who raised the red herring of whims. I didn't say that
>George Bush should actually pardon someone on a whim.
Neither did I.
>I said correctly
>that he *could* pardon on a whim, but not that he *should*.
You quickly blamed him for not doing so.
<bs snipped unread.>
duke32
wrote:
>> You have bigger and more permanent things to worry about than the law
>> of the land.
>You have no evidence as usual.
Evidence and a buck will buy you a cup of coffee.
It's your neck, not mine.
>> No one has a right to take the life of another - be he a grownup or an
>> unborn human life.
>Where does the bible make this statement? Moses and joshua take the
>lives of many people as do some of the apostles.
They paid little heed to the original covenant. Hence a new covenant.
>> His job is to sign the papers. The people make the judgement, and he
>> has to authorize it in accordance with the law.
>He can sign any piece of paper he wants. He can authorize the pardon for
>any reason he wants. He is not bound to always follow the sentence of a
>jury in all cases.
He's elected to do it.
>He does have the right to override the people's decision and it's not
>clear what "overriding consideration" you are talking about, if you even
>know yourself.
You'll figure it out.
>> > That is his job, quite literally, as the leader of the
>> >executive branch.
>> Finally, you're beginning to understand.
>I 've never denied that bush "bears ultimate responsibility for the laws
>being carried out".
And now you understand.
duke32
wrote:
>> If 12% of a group commits 85% of the crime, that's a statistic, not a
>> racial consideration.
>The statistic that matters, moron, is that many black people who have
>committed the same types of crimes as whites, can end up with higher
>numbers of more severe sentences or even the death penalty.
That's only what jjackson wants you to believe.
duke32
Crimes are a lot more.
quibbler
duk...@earthlink.net says...
I've always understood, whereas you still don't get it. Bush is
responsible for the death of those people, which contradicts your claims
that "us conservatives that stand opposed to taking life, both prebirth
and postbirth." That was a lie, which is also a sin according to your
religion. Bush is a conservative and he does not stand opposed to taking
life. Of course you are wrong about the pardon process as well, of which
you displayed no knowledge until I told you. The standard is not that he
cannot pardon, "unless a case can be made for an unfair decision." The
pardon can be issued for any reason, as can the recommendation by the
pardon board.
>
>
> duke, American-American
> *****
> 2Cor 5:10 - For we must all appear before the
> judgment seat of Christ, that each one may
> receive what is due him for the things done
> while in the body, whether good or bad.
> *****
>
--
quibbler
duk...@earthlink.net says...
> On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 16:00:01 -0600, quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> >Since I know you won't look it up, the relevant legal standard in the
> >> >texas constitution says, "In all criminal cases, except treason and
> >> >impeachment, the Governor shall have power, after conviction, on the
> >> >written signed recommendation and advice of the Board of Pardons and
> >> >Paroles, or a majority thereof, to grant reprieves and commutations of
> >> >punishment and pardons".
>
> >> I gather you don't understand the words "signed written recommendation
> >> and advice of".
>
> >Again, you gather nothing. I'm the one who provided the reference, not
> >you, and I certainly understand what it says. Nowhere does it say that
> >the signed, written recommendation has to be given for any specific or
> >non-whimsical reason. The members of the board could just make the
> >recommendation because they liked the guy.
>
> Again, you nailed yourself. I gather you don't understand the words
> "signed written recommendation and advice of".
I pointed out to you that it is just as arbitrary and whimsical and the
governor vetoing a bill. The bill has to be sent to him but he can veto
it for any reason he wants. In the same way, bush can pardon any person
for whom he receives a recommendation. It is patently not the case, as
you erroneously claimed that he can't pardon, "unless a case can be made
for an unfair decision". I even provided specific examples of one of his
16 pardons for governor being issued to a woman who stole an xmas wreathe
from her neighbor's yard. It was not necessary for him to show that the
decision was unfair. He could pardon her for whatever reason he wanted
to. It is likely that he pardoned her out of sympathy, since Bush was
convicted of stealing a wreathe during a frat prank in college as well.
Bush also received a pardon for his action, eventually. Bush also did
not make the case that he was convicted unfairly. His daddy just used
his influence to expunge his son's criminal record via engineering a
gubernatorial pardon.
> After his "advisers" advise him to rethink the sentence, then he is
> called to consider otherwise.
The fact that the pardon board has to act, which I rather than you
pointed out, has no bearing on the justification that Bush uses to
perform a pardon. As I pointed out, 464 pardons requests were
recommended to Bush and he only signed 16 of them. The Texas
constitution leaves it entirely up to his discretion as to why he signs
the pardons. He is under no obligation to deny the pardon, "unless a
case can be made for an unfair decision". The fact is that you are wrong
and recommendations have nothing to do with anything here. Unlike you, I
understand precisely what, "signed written recommendation and advice of"
means and it does not at all imply that bush can only pardon, "unless a
case can be made for an unfair decision". I gather that you do not
understand the above phrase, since nowhere is either the pardon board or
bush required to make such a case or try to show that the previous
decision was unfair. Before I pointed out how the pardon process
actually worked you clearly had not even examined what the texas law
said.
>
> >> Better luck next time, quib, you and your "whim" statement.
> >You're the one who raised the red herring of whims. I didn't say that
> >George Bush should actually pardon someone on a whim.
>
> Neither did I.
But you wrongly said that he couldn't pardon based on whim, which in fact
he can.
>
> >I said correctly
> >that he *could* pardon on a whim, but not that he *should*.
>
> You quickly blamed him for not doing so.
That's another lie. I blamed him for not reviewing the evidence more
thoroughly, not granting more reprieves, not actually going to the pardon
board, of whom he had appointed 100% of the members, and asking them to
look at various irregularities, etc. I also pointed out that your
statement, "us conservatives stand opposed to taking life, both prebirth
and postbirth" is clearly wrong, since bush is a conservative and he does
not stand opposed to the taking of life, particularly postbirth. You
have no serious counter response to this, despite your red-herring
flailings about "signed written recommendation and advice of", which
changes absolutely nothing about either the pardoning process, or the
fact that bush is guilty of carrying out the killings of more than 140
people on the Texas death row.
>
> <bs snipped unread.>
You must mean that you snipped your own bullshit. My arguments were not
"bs" and and your desperate snippage of my arguments does not in any way
refute them, nor have you succeeding in refuting anything I've been
saying here. Your continuing nonsense is still entertaining, however.
quibbler
duk...@earthlink.net says...
> On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 16:07:52 -0600, quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> If 12% of a group commits 85% of the crime, that's a statistic, not a
> >> racial consideration.
>
> >The statistic that matters, moron, is that many black people who have
> >committed the same types of crimes as whites, can end up with higher
> >numbers of more severe sentences or even the death penalty.
>
> That's only what jjackson wants you to believe.
Naturally, you haven't looked at the evidence but are just operating out
of ignorance, as per your usual behavior.
duke32
wrote:
>> >> >Since I know you won't look it up, the relevant legal standard in the
>> >> >texas constitution says, "In all criminal cases, except treason and
>> >> >impeachment, the Governor shall have power, after conviction, on the
>> >> >written signed recommendation and advice of the Board of Pardons and
>> >> >Paroles, or a majority thereof, to grant reprieves and commutations of
>> >> >punishment and pardons".
>> Again, you nailed yourself. I gather you don't understand the words
>> "signed written recommendation and advice of".
>I pointed out to you that it is just as arbitrary and whimsical and the
>governor vetoing a bill.
Now there's a quib winner. *You* might be so shallow as to release
people killers on a childess whim, but most elected people take their
civic duties seriously when they place their hand on the bible and
perform their sworn duty to the people.
>The bill has to be sent to him but he can veto
>it for any reason he wants.
It's called moral fortitude.
>> After his "advisers" advise him to rethink the sentence, then he is
>> called to consider otherwise.
>The fact that the pardon board has to act, which I rather than you
>pointed out, has no bearing on the justification that Bush uses to
>perform a pardon.
Yeah sure quib.
>But you wrongly said that he couldn't pardon based on whim, which in fact
>he can.
Actually I didn't say anything such thing. Legal laws and enforcement
thereof are for a peoples with the fortitude to enforce them.
Your concept of a law inforcement whim is playing god like a kid in a
treehouse.
duke32
wrote:
>> >I 've never denied that bush "bears ultimate responsibility for the laws
>> >being carried out".
>> And now you understand.
>I've always understood, whereas you still don't get it. Bush is
>responsible for the death of those people, which contradicts your claims
>that "us conservatives that stand opposed to taking life, both prebirth
>and postbirth." That was a lie, which is also a sin according to your
>religion.
Bush is following his sworn duties. It's really very simple, quib.
To you, honor is a whim.
> Bush is a conservative and he does not stand opposed to taking
>life. Of course you are wrong about the pardon process as well, of which
>you displayed no knowledge until I told you. The standard is not that he
>cannot pardon, "unless a case can be made for an unfair decision." The
>pardon can be issued for any reason, as can the recommendation by the
>pardon board.
Like I said, the governor acts on the recommendation of his advisers.
duke32
wrote:
>> >> If 12% of a group commits 85% of the crime, that's a statistic, not a
>> >> racial consideration.
>> >The statistic that matters, moron, is that many black people who have
>> >committed the same types of crimes as whites, can end up with higher
>> >numbers of more severe sentences or even the death penalty.
>> That's only what jjackson wants you to believe.
>Naturally, you haven't looked at the evidence but are just operating out
>of ignorance, as per your usual behavior.
Actually, you haven't look at the evidence but are just operating out
of what jjackson wants you to believe. Many call that ignorance.
quibbler
duk...@earthlink.net says...
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 11:23:00 -0600, quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> >I 've never denied that bush "bears ultimate responsibility for the laws
> >> >being carried out".
> >> And now you understand.
>
> >I've always understood, whereas you still don't get it. Bush is
> >responsible for the death of those people, which contradicts your claims
> >that "us conservatives that stand opposed to taking life, both prebirth
> >and postbirth." That was a lie, which is also a sin according to your
> >religion.
>
> Bush is following his sworn duties. It's really very simple, quib.
>
> To you, honor is a whim.
Hardly.
>
> > Bush is a conservative and he does not stand opposed to taking
> >life. Of course you are wrong about the pardon process as well, of which
> >you displayed no knowledge until I told you. The standard is not that he
> >cannot pardon, "unless a case can be made for an unfair decision." The
> >pardon can be issued for any reason, as can the recommendation by the
> >pardon board.
>
> Like I said, the governor acts on the recommendation of his advisers.
What you originally said was that he could not pardon, "unless a case can
be made for an unfair decision." That is false. He also does not have
to act on recommendation of his advisors. He can ignore the
recommendation or explicitly approve/deny it. He can also lobby the
board himself. In any event the only accurate thing you said about the
situation was what you parroted from the information I provided and you
clearly still have not grasped it well. The decision by the governor to
pardon can be made arbitrarily, whether he has to receive a
recommendation first or not. Now fuck off. YOu bore me with your idle
banter.
quibbler
duk...@earthlink.net says...
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 11:51:50 -0600, quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> >> >Since I know you won't look it up, the relevant legal standard in the
> >> >> >texas constitution says, "In all criminal cases, except treason and
> >> >> >impeachment, the Governor shall have power, after conviction, on the
> >> >> >written signed recommendation and advice of the Board of Pardons and
> >> >> >Paroles, or a majority thereof, to grant reprieves and commutations of
> >> >> >punishment and pardons".
> >> Again, you nailed yourself. I gather you don't understand the words
> >> "signed written recommendation and advice of".
>
> >I pointed out to you that it is just as arbitrary and whimsical and the
> >governor vetoing a bill.
>
> Now there's a quib winner.
I've certainly won the argument anyway.
> *You* might be so shallow as to release
> people killers on a childess whim, but most elected people take their
> civic duties seriously when they place their hand on the bible and
> perform their sworn duty to the people.
A governor's duty is to exercise his or her lawful powers of pardoning
and sentence commutation as he or she thinks best, even if this requires
nullifying a valid verdict by a jury. But as I told you, I wasn't
necessarily advocating that the governor issue pardons for no reason at
all.
>
> >The bill has to be sent to him but he can veto
> >it for any reason he wants.
>
> It's called moral fortitude.
You wouldn't know anything about that.
>
> >> After his "advisers" advise him to rethink the sentence, then he is
> >> called to consider otherwise.
>
> >The fact that the pardon board has to act, which I rather than you
> >pointed out, has no bearing on the justification that Bush uses to
> >perform a pardon.
>
> Yeah sure quib.
Good.
>
> >But you wrongly said that he couldn't pardon based on whim, which in fact
> >he can.
>
> Actually I didn't say anything such thing.
Try another lie. That one sucks.
> Legal laws and enforcement
> thereof are for a peoples with the fortitude to enforce them.
Yawn.
>
> Your concept of a law inforcement whim is playing god like a kid in a
> treehouse
As I said, I didn't say the governor should act on a whim, but merely
that he could.
.
>
>
> duke, American-American
> *****
> 2Cor 5:10 - For we must all appear before the
> judgment seat of Christ, that each one may
> receive what is due him for the things done
> while in the body, whether good or bad.
> *****
>
--
Lord Calvert
A statement that makes Barry Goldwater spin in hs grave every time this lie is
repeated.
"Every good Christian should be concerned." - Jerry Falwell regarding the
Sandra Day O'Connor nomination to the Supreme Court
"Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass." - Senator
Barry Goldwater, in response
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Ill-Legal Dept. "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here"
"My country, right or wrong; to be defended when right and righted when wrong."
- Thomas Jefferson
duke32
wrote:
>> >I pointed out to you that it is just as arbitrary and whimsical and the
>> >governor vetoing a bill.
>> Now there's a quib winner.
>I've certainly won the argument anyway.
Yeah, sure quib.
> *You* might be so shallow as to release
>> people killers on a childess whim, but most elected people take their
>> civic duties seriously when they place their hand on the bible and
>> perform their sworn duty to the people.
>A governor's duty is to exercise his or her lawful powers of pardoning
>and sentence commutation as he or she thinks best, even if this requires
>nullifying a valid verdict by a jury. But as I told you, I wasn't
>necessarily advocating that the governor issue pardons for no reason at
>all.
Too bad you didn't take that approach previously.
>> >The bill has to be sent to him but he can veto
>> >it for any reason he wants.
>> It's called moral fortitude.
>You wouldn't know anything about that.
Why not? You're the one that believes a governor can pardon a convict
if he feels like it, not me.
>> >But you wrongly said that he couldn't pardon based on whim, which in fact
>> >he can.
>> Actually I didn't say anything such thing.
>Try another lie. That one sucks.
Sorry, I know what I said.
>> Legal laws and enforcement
>> thereof are for a peoples with the fortitude to enforce them.
>Yawn.
Your attitude and your knowledge fit.
>> Your concept of a law inforcement whim is playing god like a kid in a
>> treehouse
>As I said, I didn't say the governor should act on a whim, but merely
>that he could.
Yeah, sure quib.