We did, as did our allies the Yanks and Ruskies. But, military are seldom consulted before the declaration of war from the safety of Parliament.
You Had One Job. . .
- Thread starter Tecumsehsbones
- Start date
We did, as did our allies the Yanks and Ruskies. But, military are seldom consulted before the declaration of war from the safety of Parliament.
Ignoring your red herrings, why, if you believe in the sanctity of life and respect for such by populace and state, are you ambivalent about World War II?
Or can we cut the crap and just admit that you're not a Quaker, and agree that there are circumstances when the taking of human life is justified. Then we can get to the real meat of this, i.e., what are those circumstances? instead of pissing around with yet another assertion of yours that turns out, upon examination, to be false.
Guillotine execution procedure (Казнь на гильотине) - YouTube
You are right,; I am not a Quaker.
Using lawyer strategy; however, as I am not a lawyer, need a little polishing.
You are right,; I am not a Quaker.
Using lawyer strategy; however, as I am not a lawyer, need a little polishing.
Modern war between Great Powers is MAD suicide. Since I believe in the sanctity of human life, I hold that suicide is wrong.
Whoops, must retreat to work. Cease firing (for a bit).
Or, Doetsch
Whoops, must retreat to work. Cease firing (for a bit).
Or, Doetsch
I'll jump on with; as an economic measure, why not wait out all of the appeals process then corral them all, from all states in one building, cover it in shrink wrap hook up an old John Deere with a full fuel tank then go on about your business for a few days. I used that system on groundhogs and it seemed to work fine provided I found all the exits.
I realize my chosen method was a real labour saver in that I didn't have to dispose of the ground hogs and that probably families would want their kin's remains returned to them for burial or whatever, but if you make them absorb the cost of the fuel for the John Deere, which would be a pittance divided over the number of inmates of which there seems to be no shortage, and transportation of remains perhaps they'd simply say: "you keep 'im."
We knash our teeth over this cruel and inhumane nonsense never seeming to resolve this conundrum but think nothing of our poor old aunt Nellie who goes in for a hip replacement at age 87 and dies on the operating table.
Why not approach this in the same manner with no subsequent cruel and inhumane silliness being in any way possible or relevant. Simply anesthetize them as we would poor old Aunt Nellie thereby sidestepping any arguments that we've subjected them to cruel and inhumane silliness, then do with them what you will.
We willingly do this to ourselves to undergo repair so how could any nincompoop call it inhumane? Killing them while thusly sedated could be done in any manner of choosing with it still being comparable to poor old Aunt Nellie simply expiring on the table while undergoing her ninth angioplasty fully sedated and completely pain free.
We tend to want this process to have a one step beginning and ending when it could be done in a manner no more obvious or ugly than having two folks hover over the cretin, suitably gowned and masked as though the perp were undergoing a vasectomy. The gallery of viewers don't necessarily have to see a guy wearing coveralls enter the room with an air-powered nail driver who then proceeds to stitch the forehead of the recipient in an efficient approximation of what goes on in a multitude of slaughterhouses all across America daily.
They could indeed, rather; then view the injection of a lethal cocktail with the recipient none the wiser that his vasectomy has gone off the rails, with the same end result of course.
I realize my chosen method was a real labour saver in that I didn't have to dispose of the ground hogs and that probably families would want their kin's remains returned to them for burial or whatever, but if you make them absorb the cost of the fuel for the John Deere, which would be a pittance divided over the number of inmates of which there seems to be no shortage, and transportation of remains perhaps they'd simply say: "you keep 'im."
We knash our teeth over this cruel and inhumane nonsense never seeming to resolve this conundrum but think nothing of our poor old aunt Nellie who goes in for a hip replacement at age 87 and dies on the operating table.
Why not approach this in the same manner with no subsequent cruel and inhumane silliness being in any way possible or relevant. Simply anesthetize them as we would poor old Aunt Nellie thereby sidestepping any arguments that we've subjected them to cruel and inhumane silliness, then do with them what you will.
We willingly do this to ourselves to undergo repair so how could any nincompoop call it inhumane? Killing them while thusly sedated could be done in any manner of choosing with it still being comparable to poor old Aunt Nellie simply expiring on the table while undergoing her ninth angioplasty fully sedated and completely pain free.
We tend to want this process to have a one step beginning and ending when it could be done in a manner no more obvious or ugly than having two folks hover over the cretin, suitably gowned and masked as though the perp were undergoing a vasectomy. The gallery of viewers don't necessarily have to see a guy wearing coveralls enter the room with an air-powered nail driver who then proceeds to stitch the forehead of the recipient in an efficient approximation of what goes on in a multitude of slaughterhouses all across America daily.
They could indeed, rather; then view the injection of a lethal cocktail with the recipient none the wiser that his vasectomy has gone off the rails, with the same end result of course.
I don't understand why we sentence someone to die and then we want to make it a pleasurable experience. Nobody ever suffered very long after they were shot by a firing squad or after hanging. O.J. Simpson stabbed two people to death and somehow he was not guilty even though the evidence was overwhelming. The whole system is a joke.
really I would like to think we are above executing people in this day and age where we can incarcerate for life, I can see during tribal days the need for a death sentence to protect the tribe...but if everyone's for it, meh, I don't care enough to lose much sleep over it...there's little we can really do other than express our disagreement...I see little reason for it from a financial point or a revenge point and it won't bring back the victim. I stated why I would prefer them to live.
I also believe that we have put innocents to death but that doesn't really seem to bother those in favour of.
If you have a good team of lawyers you're not even going to do prison time so once again it comes down to finance as you have shown with O.J.
My consolation in this whole mess is we do reap what we sow. Others may not be able to see it or measure it because internal suffering can be covered...but karma is kick back and kick back is wicked when wicked has been put out.
Praxius, can you say which type of cases you would support capital punishment for? I'm interested in reading it.
Well, I'm a great believer in the "exception to every rule" philosophy and I think there are exceptions with imposing the death sentence. Of course I don't believe in risking innocent lives, but in some cases (especially with D.N.A.) that risk doesn't exist. W.T.F. is the benefit for keeping the likes of Paul Bernardo alive? What makes his life so special?
he is never going to go free....
also, did he murder them...was it him...or was it her? do you know for a fact? whose knee prints were on their backs...not his
who was the Scarborough Rapist...him...how many women did he rape...a lot...how many of those did he kill none....then he met her
he is sick, she is sicker...he is confined, she is free...
I always thought the authorities blew it when they let her out the way they did. Also, she has had three children with her husband. She must love children. Could a woman who loved children murder and butcher two young women? Doesn't fit my way of thinking. I don't mean Carla didn't have problems. She must have been a bit looney to take up with Bernardo in the first place.
She got married and had children????? great stars above, wow. I can only imagine what kind of hell her brain is in now...to have children knowing what you've done to other peoples children knowing that people like you are out there hunting children...and having children.
I feel so sorry for those kids. To have to live with that kind of stigma, and history, and knowledge. To love someone who has destroyed families and lives and that person is caring for you? That's almost too much to handle.
Shocked. Truly shocked.
What's up with her eyes? Why does she have that dead look? OR is it something only I"m seeing?
a total fubar because they did not search the house properly
okay hang on here...you are missing a lot of things...first of all, it wasn't two women it was three. Karla stole drugs that they used on animals for sedation in the vet clinic where she worked and used them to drug her sister then she offered her sister up to him to him as a present... After he raped her they killed Tammy.
Shortly thereafter they went hunting in bars for young girls.
Their second kill was Lesley Mahaffy and their third was Kirsten French.
lots of women have lots of children...birthing them and loving them are very different
she married her lawyers brother... and he admits to all of the rapes and maintains to this day that she killed all the girls...I have always believed him. I saw her when they returned to the house to allow her to pick up some articles...she wore a little school girl skirt and her behaviour was enough to chill you to death...
nope, I do not believe that
Unless he beat her regularily and/or had a gun to her head or her family's head the first time, she is as culpable.
I can see no way that she is not as responsible as he.