Political Discussion

[Bandit]

I'm not a politician nor did I choose to work for the federal government so I don't need to decide who dies in war or what war is legitimate. I may choose to support a specific war but I don't have to make the decision to direct the effort.


Perhaps I do pay your share of maximium security.

You have already decided that murdering innocent women and children in war is fine and dandy but we just call the something else. You dont have to be a politician to agree with them.

No, I want the prisoners in your back yard in cages and locked up in your basement. you can also be the guard and cook for them, using your food, your toilet paper, your soap and shower, and then sing them a lullaby. I will pay for the fence and gates around your prison house.

I can't imagine having a two-sided conviction.

Well guess what, you certainly do have two sided convictions

[OhioFiler]

so you want to see them dead because you want to punish them and get revenge. that would explain why you say thousands of innocents being murdering during war is just fine and dandy.


Yes it is. It is exactly what George SBoosh and Dick Head Cheney would say.

Yes, the death penalty is punitive and I support it.

It is also what the position of the "greatest" Democrat president of all-time, FDR. I doubt you'll accuse of FDR and his New Deal of being right-wing.

Andrew Jackson, the father of the Democratic Party was a firm believer in war and was a ruthless killer of native Americans.

How can you claim my position on war is a "right-wing" position?

[OhioFiler]

You have already decided that murdering innocent women and children in war is fine and dandy but we just call the something else. You dont have to be a politician to agree with them.

No, I want the prisoners in your back yard in cages and locked up in your basement. you can also be the guard and cook for them, using your food, your toilet paper, your soap and shower, and then sing them a lullaby. I will pay for the fence and gates around your prison house.




Well guess what, you certainly do have two sided convictions

I'm not sure how my support for the necessity of war and accepting there is collateral damage (i.e. innocent deaths) in conjunction with my belief the death penalty is appropriate leads you to see I possess two-sided convictions.

[Bandit]

Yes, the death penalty is punitive and I support it.

It is also what the position of the "greatest" Democrat president of all-time, FDR. I doubt you'll accuse of FDR and his New Deal of being right-wing.

Andrew Jackson, the father of the Democratic Party was a firm believer in war and was a ruthless killer of native Americans.

How can you claim my position on war is a "right-wing" position?

You obviosuly do not know my views about that very well. I view reps & dems as the same thing and thank you for just proving that. I do not believe there are actually two parties, I see only ONE party and it is called the RepDem party. I would never agree with war like you do to kill innocent people. Never.

I disagree with you that people should be put to death as a punishment in revenge but rather to protect the innocent. We will never agree on that.

[Bandit]

I'm not sure how my support for the necessity of war and accepting there is collateral damage (i.e. innocent deaths) in conjunction with my belief the death penalty is appropriate leads you to see I possess two-sided convictions.

you are beyond two sided convictions but don't realize it, perhaps because you are too busy pointing out everyone elses two sided convictions to see your own?

[OhioFiler]

you are beyond two sided convictions but don't realize it, perhaps because you are too busy pointing out everyone elses two sided convictions to see your own?

I'm ignorant and dense. So point it out for me. Thanks!

[OhioFiler]

You obviosuly do not know my views about that very well. I view reps & dems as the same thing and thank you for just proving that. I do not believe there are actually two parties, I see only ONE party and it is called the RepDem party. I would never agree with war like you do to kill innocent people. Never.

I disagree with you that people should be put to death as a punishment in revenge but rather to protect the innocent. We will never agree on that.

Your views are "left-wing".

I don't agree with war that has the INTENT to murder innocent people. That's al Qaida's and other Islamofascist's war execution style.

We don't disagree on the use of the death penalty. You see it as justifiable when the killer has taken two or more lives as you assume they are without remorse, likely to hurt someone else in prison and too expensive to keep locked up forever.

I see the same benefits to executing a convicted murderer whether he's killed one, two or more AND I like the idea the execution is punitive.

[Bandit]

I already did. You aren't dense, you just have a hard time accepting your own two sided convictions.

I have a one sided conviciton on murder...taking an innocent life will always be murder from war to abortion to cold blooded killers and I dont care what the situation is. You have this thing about war, but only the wars you choose that justifies the murder of innocent people yet tell me that when an individual has a war with someone on his block over drugs and murders someone in his little neighborhood war or gangster war, they must be punished by death, while those in high places, like andrew jacksons war at murdering innocent american indians is justified. Just because you name it something different or make up rules for murdering, doesn't change the fact it is murder of innocent people, when they are in fact innocent.

You justify killing innocent people (presidents & kings at war for land & power) and also condemn killing innocent people (the guy in prison who shot the banker for owing him money).

You have decided to
a) justify the kings murders during war, and
b) not justify the individual murders during his individual war with someone.
You have a clear two sided conviction about those who do the murdering of innocent people.

[Bandit]

Your views are "left-wing".

I don't agree with war that has the INTENT to murder innocent people. That's al Qaida's and other Islamofascist's war execution style.

We don't disagree on the use of the death penalty. You see it as justifiable when the killer has taken two or more lives as you assume they are without remorse, likely to hurt someone else in prison and too expensive to keep locked up forever.

I see the same benefits to executing a convicted murderer whether he's killed one, two or more AND I like the idea the execution is punitive.

I might be left wing, but I would be putting bush into the gallows right along with his oil buddy Saddam, while you justify what bush does in murdering innocent people, because you call it "war", and then you condem Saddam for doing the same exact thing bush does.

[OhioFiler]

I already did. You aren't dense, you just have a hard time accepting your own two sided convictions.

I have a one sided conviciton on murder...taking an innocent life will always be murder from war to abortion to cold blooded killers and I dont care what the situation is. You have this thing about war, but only the wars you choose that justifies the murder of innocent people yet tell me that when an individual has a war with someone on his block over drugs and murders someone in his little neighborhood war or gangster war, they must be punished by death, while those in high places, like andrew jacksons war at murdering innocent american indians is justified. Just because you name it something different or make up rules for murdering, doesn't change the fact it is murder of innocent people, when they are in fact innocent.

You justify killing innocent people (presidents & kings at war for land & power) and also condemn killing innocent people (the guy in prison who shot the banker for owing him money).

You have decided to
a) justify the kings murders during war, and
b) not justify the individual murders during his individual war with someone.
You have a clear two sided conviction about those who do the murdering of innocent people.

Not quite my positions. I support the need for war and understand there will be collateral damage. I don't support war BECAUSE there will be innocent life lost. I grieve those losses of lives.

"Individual wars" are not wars. They are disputes between two persons. We have a legal system designed to adjudicate such "wars".

You can't compare the apples of war to the oranges of thug behavior in the neighborhood.

[OhioFiler]

I might be left wing, but I would be putting bush into the gallows right along with his oil buddy Saddam, while you justify what bush does in murdering innocent people, because you call it "war", and then you condem Saddam for doing the same exact thing bush does.

Exacly who did GWB murder? I missed those headlines. Are you Cindy Sheehan by any chance?

[Bandit]

Exacly who did GWB murder? I missed those headlines. Are you Cindy Sheehan by any chance?

Every innocent Iraqui was murdered By GWB in his personal war over his fathers vandetta against Saddam.

You obviously missed it deliberatley because of your two sided convicitons. I understand that according to you, Bush can drop all the bombs he wants on innocent people, but he has to call it war, then you justify it.

[OhioFiler]

Every innocent Iraqui was murdered By GWB in his personal war over his fathers vandetta against Saddam.

You obviously missed it deliberatley because of your two sided convicitons. I understand that according to you, Bush can drop all the bombs he wants on innocent people, but he has to call it war, then you justify it.

Okay.

Have a great day!

[Bandit]

Not quite my positions. I support the need for war and understand there will be collateral damage. I don't support war BECAUSE there will be innocent life lost. I grieve those losses of lives.

"Individual wars" are not wars. They are disputes between two persons. We have a legal system designed to adjudicate such "wars".

You can't compare the apples of war to the oranges of thug behavior in the neighborhood.

and disputes between Saddam & Bush are not two persons? You are funny!


Thank you for proving my very first assumption. You are the one who decides what war is and what war isn't, How convenient for you.

According to your logic, as long I declare war on you first, then it is ok for me to murder you and if someone else takes a bullet along the way too, that is ok. This way, you are only collateral damage and I am not a murderer. BUt according to your rules on murder, first I must become president over an army

[JRScott]

Bill of Federalism

http://www.federalismamendment.com/