Chief Justice Rehnquist Dies of Cancer :(

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:

Bob The Shrek wrote:

'I am extremely pro-death penalty. I believe that the penalty should be dealt out far more often than it has been. We need to "send them a message" to quote George Wallace (who I don't agree with but he WAS a victim of violent crime himself).'

The trouble is, the message doesn't get through and proves the death penalty is not an effective deterrent.

It's a deterrent to the people who get executed :)

Err, no, because they have been caught, convicted and executed. A deterrent stops people from committing the crime in the first place.

FreddiesGhettoTrench,

You're a scary person... I'm glad there are just a few persons with the same extreme thoughts as you. It's a shame that one of them is the political leader of the US ;)

I'm not gonna urgue with you (again)... But your political views are extremely "right". Attitudes like yours won't do the world much good.

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:

Yeah, I figured as much. In other words, you are a hypocrit with the emphatic powers of a doorknob, who doesn't have a clue what she is talking about, and should stick to being the most popular member of her local Redneck-Association in stead of posting RIP-messages for a useless SOB who should've died far earlier.

Leave intelligent topics to people more intelligent than yourself, in other words: 98.4% of the world's population.

Let's see... I'm a "redneck" because I feel bad that a member of the Supreme Court died? If it had been Ginsberg or another more liberal member of the court, I would feel bad as well. I certainly would not be calling them a "useless SOB" or anything demeaning of that nature.

Also, FYI, "rednecks" are from the Southern USA, and I live in Philadelphia.

And hypocrite is spelled with an e at the end.

And how does it spells on Dutch?

One thing always puzzles me about some right-wingers (this is slightly OT) and that is the fact that they claim they are "pro-life" but yet have no trouble being pro-war. A bit of a contradiction perhaps?

A certain "pro-life" president has no trouble sending young men and women in "harm's way" (wmd anyone?) to have their lives possibly ended and the one thing that makes it all worth while is saying "Isn't the world a better place without Saddam?"

pma wrote:

One thing always puzzles me about some right-wingers (this is slightly OT) and that is the fact that they claim they are "pro-life" but yet have no trouble being pro-war. A bit of a contradiction perhaps?

A certain "pro-life" president has no trouble sending young men and women in "harm's way" (wmd anyone?) to have their lives possibly ended and the one thing that makes it all worth while is saying "Isn't the world a better place without Saddam?"

Put aside the fact that conservatives support the use of force but yet claim to be "better christians". I don't think they've read the Bible enough to figure out that Jesus was a man who totally stood against war, violence, hatred and revenge.

"Right wing" is not necessarily equal to "conservative". I always vote only right wing parties. But still, most of my opinions are VERY different from opinions of the stupid guy who rules the most powerful country in the world. If I lived in the USA, I'm quite sure I wouldn't vote the republicans.

Mr. Scully wrote:

"Right wing" is not necessarily equal to "conservative". I always vote only right wing parties. But still, most of my opinions are VERY different from opinions of the stupid guy who rules the most powerful country in the world. If I lived in the USA, I'm quite sure I wouldn't vote the republicans.

Yes, that's a generalization. Then again in my co untry there's close to zero difference between most major parties left, center or right (green's etc. minor parties are of course different and the very extreme right, but they lack the support of the average-Joe who'll vote the same party or candidate due to a bad habit or something).

But in general most major parties say the same things and give the same (empty) promises, bunch of no-good populists. The one thing our senate is good at is given themselves a raise... Of course when a pay rise is voted upon a few hyper-lefties vote against it, but then willingly take the extra-money when outnumbered in the vote ;-)

pma wrote:

One thing always puzzles me about some right-wingers (this is slightly OT) and that is the fact that they claim they are "pro-life" but yet have no trouble being pro-war. A bit of a contradiction perhaps?

A certain "pro-life" president has no trouble sending young men and women in "harm's way" (wmd anyone?) to have their lives possibly ended and the one thing that makes it all worth while is saying "Isn't the world a better place without Saddam?"

You're ignoring the fact that we're not having a war just to have a war. We are liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam.

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:

pma wrote:

One thing always puzzles me about some right-wingers (this is slightly OT) and that is the fact that they claim they are "pro-life" but yet have no trouble being pro-war. A bit of a contradiction perhaps?

A certain "pro-life" president has no trouble sending young men and women in "harm's way" (wmd anyone?) to have their lives possibly ended and the one thing that makes it all worth while is saying "Isn't the world a better place without Saddam?"

You're ignoring the fact that we're not having a war just to have a war. We are liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam.

Blah blah blah blah blah... and you're ignoring what pma said. You're completely brainwashed by Bush and his extreme right-wing propaganda. What pma said cannot be debated. The majority of pro-life people are pro-war. Tens of thousands of innocent people (perhaps more) have been killed in Iraq, the war of choice, the outlet for the majority of Bush's funding. It has cost not millions, not billions, but trillions. Bush couldn't afford to protect New Orleans, #3 on the list of possible tragedies, because there was "no budget". His words. Saddam was captured a couple years ago, if I'm not mistaken. The Americans do not need to be there, to impose their way of life on the Iraqi people. I have read of many people telling their story from over there, saying it's worse now than it was before.

A year ago, National Geographic predicted this event in New Orleans exactly as it happened. I find that fascinating.

You should move south then, you are not exactly the kind of person who would fit in such a progressive area as New England.

Yeah, you're right, I don't fit in with people who proclaim to be John Kerry's biggest fans but yet use "f****t" every other word (majority of Philadelphians.)

The Americans do not need to be there, to impose their way of life on the Iraqi people. I have read of many people telling their story from over there, saying it's worse now than it was before.

Do you know that after the Confederacy was defeated, people said the same thing? "The North does not need to be there to impose their way of life on the South..." As soon as the North left, the South basically went back to making African-Americans slaves again. Same deal here. We leave, the same shit will start occurring that was occurring before, just with a new Saddam.

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:

The Americans do not need to be there, to impose their way of life on the Iraqi people. I have read of many people telling their story from over there, saying it's worse now than it was before.

Do you know that after the Confederacy was defeated, people said the same thing? "The North does not need to be there to impose their way of life on the South..." As soon as the North left, the South basically went back to making African-Americans slaves again. Same deal here. We leave, the same shit will start occurring that was occurring before, just with a new Saddam.

Speculation, but a valid point. However, the fact that your only reference was to an event which happened 140 years ago would make one wonder how truly possible such a thing would be today. Can you cite a more recent example?

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:

The Americans do not need to be there, to impose their way of life on the Iraqi people. I have read of many people telling their story from over there, saying it's worse now than it was before.

Do you know that after the Confederacy was defeated, people said the same thing? "The North does not need to be there to impose their way of life on the South..." As soon as the North left, the South basically went back to making African-Americans slaves again. Same deal here. We leave, the same shit will start occurring that was occurring before, just with a new Saddam.

Speculation, but a valid point. However, the fact that your only reference was to an event which happened 140 years ago would make one wonder how truly possible such a thing would be today. Can you cite a more recent example?

World War II. People said Nazi Germany could never become a democracy. Look at it now. But the fact that it became a democracy was due in a large part to the Western influence in West Germany.

Chances are that this new "Iraqi Democracy" could end up turning against us. Besides, this is not the first time it happens. Remember when that fuckin' idiot Reagan gave weapons to Saddam Hussein in the 80s to fight the Ayatollah. Guess what he did with all the weapons and financial aid he recieved after the war with Iran was over? Oh, and don't get me started with all the help Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban received to fight the Russians in Afghanistan.

Solution: STOP STARTING DUMB WARS AROUND THE WORLD!!

There's way too much tax payers money wasted on killing people. Money that could be spent on fighting poverty, disease, and given to those who need it.

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:

The Americans do not need to be there, to impose their way of life on the Iraqi people. I have read of many people telling their story from over there, saying it's worse now than it was before.

Do you know that after the Confederacy was defeated, people said the same thing? "The North does not need to be there to impose their way of life on the South..." As soon as the North left, the South basically went back to making African-Americans slaves again. Same deal here. We leave, the same shit will start occurring that was occurring before, just with a new Saddam.

Speculation, but a valid point. However, the fact that your only reference was to an event which happened 140 years ago would make one wonder how truly possible such a thing would be today. Can you cite a more recent example?

World War II. People said Nazi Germany could never become a democracy. Look at it now. But the fact that it became a democracy was due in a large part to the Western influence in West Germany.

Who said it? I mean this "People said Nazi Germany..." It was war against nazism, but not for democracy... War in Iraq is war for oil, not for democracy too. I hope it wouldn't shock you too much!