Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
No you imbecile you started with the insults and I'm more than happy to sling 'em right back at your poorly equipped ass...
It must be difficult trying to actually state a position on much of anything when you keep finding yourself having to rely on insults...
As for this thread and the topic of "The death penalty" .....
I'm all for killing those who need killing but I'm dead set against agents of the state being involved in either the trial or the execution.
They have an abysmal record at both.
Such matters would be better handled by local militias or even neighborhood groups who had a vested interest.
This is another area where federal tax dollars are best not spent, they come with too many strings.
The legal argument against the death penalty, even at the state level, is that it violates the eighth amendment, and by incorporation via the 14th amendment, the states are not allowed to carry out cruel and unusual punishment.
Good cops get punished and filtered out of the system. I am not saying all of them are bad, but there is this whole system where they don't report anything against eachother out of fear of retribution. There aren't enough cops out there willing to write another cop a ticket. There is not a rule of law just a fancy way of creating revenue for the state and locking undesirables up. People are $#@!ing scared to death of anyone of authority because they can murder your dog because it licked them.
you suffer reading comprehension issues.
I'm not saying you started it. I clearly called you insane. I even owned up to doing so in other threads. I stand by that, you are nuts.
so by saying no, you are proving to again be a retard that can't debate because you can't read well
It has nothing to do with emotion. And it has nothing to do with "the impact of more lives lost" (whatever that is supposed to mean).
It is an appeal against hypocrisy.
Killers can be punished without killing them. Capital punishment will inevitably result in the killing of innocents.
Killing innocents in the name of punishing the killers of innocents is the epitome of hypocritical self-contradiction
If anything, yours is the emotional position. You clearly don't give a damn about the wrongly-convicted innocent. I doubt you even give a damn about the rightly-convicted guilty. As I suspect is the case for many "law and order" masturbators, support for capital punishment seems to be little more than a legal way of vicariously getting off on killing other people.
again, a useless appeal to emotion. life in prison without parole will also result in the killing of innocents. I'm not sure which results in less deaths. countless studies on both sides can be cited arguing about the impact the death penalty has on deterring crime for instance..
pro tip - You would do well to show less emotion when claiming I am the one to appeal to emotionIf anything, yours is the emotional position. You clearly don't give a damn about the wrongly-convicted innocent. I doubt you even give a damn about the rightly-convicted guilty. As I suspect is the case for many "law and order" masturbators, support for capital punishment seems to be little more than a legal way of vicariously getting off on killing other people.
I primarily believe in consent of the governed. I also believe in the concept of originalism when honoring legal contracts.
So, I argue strongly in the favor of states having the power to do this. I find it very upsetting the way progressives use the power of the judicial system to unwind original understanding of what was agreed to. SCOTUS did well today.
More poorly worded attempts at insult...By one who claims qualified to denote insanity by mere proclamation.....
Ho-hum...
Appearing to a person of your intellect as "insane" or "nuts" surely means I'm on the right track....
After all one needs only look around to see where people of your ilk have gotten society. "Please sir, may I have more of the same only harder"?
okay is relative. we don't live in the perfect utopia . bad $#@! happens.
if enough people say it is ok to choke you out for not paying taxes, you are $#@!ed if you don't pay taxes. sorry. that axiom is just part of the deal.
fortunately, I believe people are generally good. the problem is usually that lone people are acting in a manner that most people don't agree with, making your question a bit of a straw man.
"We can't have an informed discussion, because we don't have data," FBI Director James Comey said in the House of Representatives in October.
"People have data about who went to a movie last weekend, or how many books were sold, or how many cases of the flu walked into an emergency room. And I cannot tell you how many people were shot by police in the United States last month, last year, or anything about the demographics. And that's a very bad place to be."
if enough people say it is ok to choke you out for not paying taxes
If the home owner wants to.
Once in jail, the threat to society is gone
A good use for taxes
Isn't the ideology built around not killing unless under eminent threat?
The Feds cannot abuse the rights of the individual either. The Feds didn't grant life, that life isn't theirs, they should not be able to take it.
this 5-4 decision means the winners were those that were honoring the original understanding of our rules.
the first step to taking anything back is to adhere to the rules - fighting for originalism is the first step. This SCOTUS nomination might be the only good thing that comes from Trump, so this thread should be a celebration, but the useless anarchists in our midst prevent that from every happening.
Which "rules" and whose original understanding?
Today's kourts in no way represent the justice system this country was founded on...
I'll grant that Gorsuch was correct in standing by Arkansas in their decision but it was Arkansas who prostituted justice albeit not in the specific issue set before the SC to hear.
Blaming anarchists or anybody else for your failure to couch logical and succinct arguments without resorting to insult is asinine.
"Originalism" is a sound theory if one uses it to refer to the constitution and bill or rights as they were written and not some 19th century interpretation...
Laymen, not lawyers, must be called upon to make such distinctions, we as a nation are dealing with centuries of lawyer interpretation and they've brought nothing but strife and disagreement.........The 'original' documents were drafted and approved by a mix of laymen and lawyers so the only way to counteract centuries of lawyer interpretation is to have laymen interpret for an equal number of years...
I haven't seen or heard any opinion expressed by Gorsuch that would lead me to believe he's going to even try to adhere to the constitution or bill of rights as they were written....The simple issue of whether or not states have the authority to execute a citizen sentenced to death is not exactly a pivotal issue...
Given Gorsuch's pedigree it's very unlikely that he'll ever be able to interpret the writings as they were meant;
Mr. Trump’s selection of Judge Gorsuch was nonetheless a bit of a surprise, coming from someone who had campaigned as a Washington outsider. Judge Gorsuch has deep roots in the city and the establishment Mr. Trump often criticized.
His mother was a high-level official in the Reagan administration. He spent part of his childhood in Washington and practiced law here for a decade, at a prominent law firm and in the Justice Department. And, like all of the current justices, he is a product of the Ivy League, having attended college at Columbia and law school at Harvard.
Judge Gorsuch, 49 — who was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Denver, by President George W. Bush — is an originalist (this statement flies in the face of logic!TE), meaning he tries to interpret the Constitution consistently with the understanding of those who drafted and adopted it. This approach leads him to generally but not uniformly conservative results.
It is easy however to see why you would call his appointment grounds to celebrate..............More of the same....
Exactly. I mean, we've gotta choose our cause celebres carefully. Look at Black Lives Matter: every hero they pick turns out to invariably be a horrible criminal gangbanger who, any normal person would look at and say, probably totally deserved to get shot! We don't want to be Black Lives Matter.
This guy was a criminal scum. I have only so much sympathy to go around. The general populace has even less. Let it go. Executing murderers is not a problem high on the to-do list of important things to solve so that our country isn't destroyed.
Executions cost more than life in prison - a lot more and what about my tax dollars going to execute innocent people?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyph.../#1f55947d673e
Connect With Us