 | | Re: Tony Martin case: You can't {make up} better criticism of Liberals!
|
|
(...) And I can't believe that you can't read. It's not okay for somone to steal. That said, it's not okay for you to kill someone for stealing. Do the words 'punishment fir the crime' ring any vague bell? Read and come back with something relavent (...) (21 years ago, 25-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Tony Martin case: You can't {make up} better criticism of Liberals!
|
|
(...) No but none of those are criminal acts or occuring in my home potentially threating my life either. Frankly, I can't belive you think it is okay for someone to break into you home as long as they are only stealing? (...) Jaywalking is not a (...) (21 years ago, 25-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Tony Martin case: You can't {make up} better criticism of Liberals!
|
|
(...) Why? Do all smokers eventually do 'hard drugs'? Do all people who view erotica end up being Charles Manson? Justify please. (...) And this is civilized? Jaywalking warrants the death penalty? (...) And if someone steals my cloak, I'll offer (...) (21 years ago, 25-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Tony Martin case: You can't {make up} better criticism of Liberals!
|
|
(...) And again we go around with the punishment not suiting the crime. If someone is stealing your stuff, what justice is served by killing him? The punishment has to be proportional to the crime or, taking your idea of justice, we have is the (...) (21 years ago, 25-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Tony Martin case: You can't {make up} better criticism of Liberals!
|
|
(...) A persons guilt is not in question when they are caught in the act. The legal system pertains to persons who are charged after the fact. (...) If imprisoning someone who kills a person that broke into their home is your idea of a 'civil' (...) (21 years ago, 25-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Tony Martin case: You can't {make up} better criticism of Liberals!
|
|
(...) if someone is in MY house, taking MY stuff, i have to stand there and watch quietly? I dont think so. There are consequences to every action. If someone is too stupid to understand that this is my stuff and they should keep their hands off it, (...) (21 years ago, 25-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?)
|
|
(...) Skeptical which way? (...) And neither do I. At the same time I don't believe in letting them off the hook and overtaxing the vastly less wealthy members of our society instead. The reality is that we have a corporate welfare scheme of untold (...) (21 years ago, 25-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?)
|
|
(...) Saddam wasn't particularly unstable. His actions are fairly predictable, in fact. I suppose any dictatorship is inherently unstable, but that is hardly a valid excuse in and of itself (see: all the other dictatorships that the U.S. has no (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?)
|
|
(...) Let me say this, Dave! I won't defend big business. I am not a fan of "big business", nor am I a fan of big government. "Big" in these areas is bad IMO, inevitabley leading to corruption and abuse of power. I don't know any specifics about (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?)
|
|
(...) Yeah, I was called in on that characterization as well by Dave! What I meant basically was that sometimes violence can beget peace. How about it is good to resist against evil, even if that means going to war. But I think we are of the same (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?)
|
|
(...) Business, sure, but look at the circumstances. Cheney was Secretary of Defense in Gulf War I and CEO of Halliburton in 1995, and in 1999 oil deals were struck with Iraq. Let's remember that this was during the time when Saddam was already (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?)
|
|
(...) The Sons of Saddam seem to have forgotten that trite statement. Or perhaps, "He who lives be the sword, dies by the sword." So, yes, it's trite, but it also kinda backfires against David since it can also be used to explain why it happened. I (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?)
|
|
(...) That can't be applicable, the institutions whose legitimacy for trial was recognized have been overpassed. Trial would therefore be a farce without an impartial judge. (...) No longer "if". IMO it's just a question of taste (or sensibility, if (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: <snip> (...) And yet you still keep on missing the point--you didn't give the inspectors this long to do their job--doing their job without the support and 'proof' that you "Mericans supposedly had, btw, (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?)
|
|
(...) And the memory loss from the right must have the same short-life: the inspections were there to confirm the known WMD had been destroyed, and logic says what was destroyed can no longer be found. Can you prove those WMD were not destroyed? (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Tony Martin case: You can't {make up} better criticism of Liberals!
|
|
(...) Life is choices, and learning from past mistakes, and hopefully, as I probably don't have to mention to you, redemption. If yer dead, how can you work at that. I'm not an opponent to the death penalty, I am an opponent to 'vigilanty-ism'. As (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Tony Martin case: You can't {make up} better criticism of Liberals!
|
|
(...) Life. It's about choices (1). Be a mountain climber? You might fall and crack your skull open. Race cars? You might hit a stationary object at a rapid rate and scramble your brains. Break into someone's home? You might find that that occupant (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Wow! Little Canada in a 'International' issue!
|
|
(URL) which 'tit for tat'... One Canadian dead, one Iranian dead. This is getting ugly. Dave K (21 years ago, 24-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tony Martin case: You can't {make up} better criticism of Liberals!
|
|
(...) Lives? How many criminal acts are there? And how many of them end with a death? I think the percentages speak for themselves. I always love people who rant and rave about how Playboy leads to sexual molestors and predators "All those sexual (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Tony Martin case: You can't {make up} better criticism of Liberals!
|
|
(...) Well I certainly will not risk my life to try and find out first. If a person breaks into my house I will assume the worst and act accordingly. (...) No, I wonder how people can be so pacifistic when it comes to their lives and property. -Mike (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
