Do you have a political issue you want to discuss? Or something you want clarified?

by **datrain711** Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:46 am

Do it in this thread.

I'll start. I would like a discussion on the death penalty. I consider this to be one of the "Big 3" as far as issues that people get really fired up for.

Lets talk about it

by **RCBooba** Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:49 am

I am for the death penalty. I don't buy that it costs more to kill someone than to keep them alive and support them for the rest of their life. If the reason is legal fees than fix the legal system. I think the death penalty should be limited to people convicted of first-degree murder and rapists convicted more than once.

by **datrain711** Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:50 am

booba...thanks for helping to start this thread. I am also a supporter of the death penalty. I'll come up with some good reasons and write them down after i wake up Smile

by **drago** Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:26 am

i am sort of for the death penalty, its just tough with people going to prison for crimes they didn't committ, let alone killing them over the same crimes.

Less and less of that is happening now with DNA testing, but it is still an issue.

by **RCBooba** Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:49 am

You're right, Matt, it is horrible for an innocent person to suffer a fate they don't deserve. With that said, I think the pros outway the cons with the death penalty. Bring back the guillotine

by **Mr. Reynolds** Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:04 am

we should talk about iraq.. anythought? opinions? stands?

by **RCBooba** Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:17 am

Never should have gone
Never had a right to go
Should leave as soon as possible

by **datrain711** Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:21 am

with the introduction of DNA testing, the death penalty is now only applied to the most heinous crimes where DNA can be linked. Remember, 90% of homicides either don't qualify or won't be pursued for the death penalty.

The main issue now I think is whether we believe whether it is right or wrong and why. The wrongful deaths, although they have happened in the past, are now not going to be an issue.

by **Mr. Reynolds** Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:23 am

even after being owned on september 11 you still believe that we had no right to be there?? booba??

by **RCBooba** Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:27 am

Mr. Reynolds wrote:even after being owned on september 11 you still believe that we had no right to be there?? booba??

Absolutely. I think the deaths during Sept. 11 were horrible and unjust.

But the attacks were more reaction than instigation. Also, Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11.

by **datrain711** Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:30 am

RCBooba wrote:
Mr. Reynolds wrote:even after being owned on september 11 you still believe that we had no right to be there?? booba??

Absolutely. I think the deaths during Sept. 11 were horrible and unjust.

But the attacks were more reaction than instigation. Also, Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11.

which attacks were more reaction? and you can't say Iraq had nothing to do with september 11th, because Iraq has something to do with almost all of our foreign policy positions. As for how much they are connected, that can be debated here. But Iraq is certainly part of the equation.

by **RCBooba** Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:39 am

The attacks were done by a group of people that were instigated (and trained, in a lesser extent) by the United States. It wasn't as bad as what the U.S. did to Japan in WWII, but we did not get attacked because we were "innocent". I don't believe the people that died deserved to die, but it is no surprise we were finally attacked.

If Iraq cannot be linked to the group that attacked during Sept. 11, then they were not involved. If it can't be proved that Iraq was creating WMD's, then they were not. Those were the 2 main reasons for fighting in Iraq, and both have not been able to be proven.

The United States needs to go back to being an isolationist country like it was prior to WWI. It is the only way to fix the problems that are going on right now.

by **datrain711** Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:49 am

RCBooba wrote:The attacks were done by a group of people that were instigated (and trained, in a lesser extent) by the United States. It wasn't as bad as what the U.S. did to Japan in WWII, but we did not get attacked because we were "innocent". I don't believe the people that died deserved to die, but it is no surprise we were finally attacked.
.

This is not correct. We did not train those people. Those people overran the camps we set up to train other people to fight Soviet domination 20 years ago.
We did not instigate them to attack us. and if you think we did, i'd like to hear how

by **drago** Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:50 am

other countries wouldn't accept one of the wealthiest countries in the world sitting on their hands while the middle east is exploding. i suppose it is exploding in large part because of our involvement but in the time you are speaking of, the US was allowed to sit pat because it had just gottne over killing how many million of it's finest in the civil war.

we were no power house back then, thank teddy for the change to elite...at least in part.

by **RCBooba** Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:57 am

datrain: Let me get this straight....they attacked us just because?

Drago: Other countries are not accepting us policing the world. It is a no-win situation. My opinion is to cut the losses, get out, turn the focus back on the home front.

We are over there to "stop and eliminate terrorism"....does anyone else realize how ludicrous that is???

by **drago** Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:00 pm

I'm not pro war either...infact, i was sick of it when we first started. It's not like you can attack a whole country for a terriorist act. That's like england attacking us because some americans got drunk and shot up their downtown area.

by **RCBooba** Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:02 pm

It's exactly what instigated WWI

by **datrain711** Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:02 pm

RCBooba wrote:datrain: Let me get this straight....they attacked us just because?

Drago: Other countries are not accepting us policing the world. It is a no-win situation. My opinion is to cut the losses, get out, turn the focus back on the home front.

We are over there to "stop and eliminate terrorism"....does anyone else realize how ludicrous that is???

they attacked us because of a difference in ideals and philosophies. Not because of any specific event/action on our parts

by **RCBooba** Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:04 pm

I believe this is an "agree to disagree" situation, sir.

While we differ on why it happened and going into it, what are your thoughts on staying or going?

by **datrain711** Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:27 pm

agree to disagree huh, you should ask Ollie how those usually turn out Smile

I think that one thing people fail to consider about Saddam was that he was one of the biggest human rights violator in world history. Millions of people were executed in that country for not falling in line with his regime. He was starving his own people.

I don't have a problem with them going there, as it was universally thought of as the right thing to do (by both sides of the political spectrum) I think some things have been handled poorly, but it is always tough to predict an outcome in such a volatile part of the world.

We have the benefit of hindsight to guide our opinions now. I think going to iraq was the best thing to do at the time. I stand by that decision. I think we need to develop an exit strategy in the near future

by **Mr. Reynolds** Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:45 pm

datrain711 wrote:
RCBooba wrote:datrain: Let me get this straight....they attacked us just because?

Drago: Other countries are not accepting us policing the world. It is a no-win situation. My opinion is to cut the losses, get out, turn the focus back on the home front.

We are over there to "stop and eliminate terrorism"....does anyone else realize how ludicrous that is???

they attacked us because of a difference in ideals and philosophies. Not because of any specific event/action on our parts

datrain is right, believe me i have seen way to many videos and biographies on sadam hussein and osama binladen. sep 11 happened because of different ideals and philosophies. they didnt' like what we were doing in middle east at the time

by **RCBooba** Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:46 pm

And we still agree to disagree! What fun!! Smile

Who's up for abortion?

by **datrain711** Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:23 pm

abortion is wrong

by **Mr. Reynolds** Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:33 pm

yes abortion is wrong, there are just too many black kids running around not knowing who there daddy is Shocked

i'm just kidding. but yea abortion is wrong, use a condom

by **RCBooba** Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:38 pm

I'm for women's choice. Abortion is wrong as birth control.

by **Mr. Reynolds** Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:42 pm

how is birth control wrong, it attempts to keep abortion from happening and not having to use a condom, you're not killing the baby by using birth control so i don't know how you can have an arguement

by **RCBooba** Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:46 pm

I am for a women's choice, I do not believe abortion should be regulated by the government.

What I meant was I don't think people should go out and have sex constantly w/o taking birth control, and then using abortion as a form of birth control. I am for the pill and condoms (though not a fan, but whatever)

by **Mr. Reynolds** Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:51 pm

if your a guy, no one is a fan of a condom

by **drago** Wed Jul 30, 2008 3:02 pm

RCBooba wrote:I'm for women's choice. Abortion is wrong as birth control.

ah the age old question...remind me never to move south, don't want to get beaten to death by a lady carrying a bible.

by **Mr. Reynolds** Wed Jul 30, 2008 3:13 pm

haha beaten by a bible, that's pretty intense

by **drago** Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:01 pm

That's the south for ya. I am never crossing the mason dixon again...unless i have to.

Seriously, those people are flat out fanatics, they all vote one way because they are religous. Didn't we fight and win a war over freedom of religon?

by **RCBooba** Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:18 pm

Yes, but more wars have been fought over religion than freedom of religion. "Separation of church and state" is a joke.

by **drago** Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:29 pm

RCBooba wrote:Yes, but more wars have been fought over religion than freedom of religion. "Separation of church and state" is a joke.

seperation of what? i don't follow? i thought you had to be catholic to be a republican?

by **RCBooba** Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:33 pm

Exactly

by **drago** Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:38 pm

RCBooba wrote:Exactly

can muslims join? i think they should.

by **datrain711** Fri Aug 01, 2008 9:37 am

drago wrote:That's the south for ya. I am never crossing the mason dixon again...unless i have to.

Seriously, those people are flat out fanatics, they all vote one way because they are religous. Didn't we fight and win a war over freedom of religon?

holy sweeping overgeneralizations batman!

by **datrain711** Fri Aug 01, 2008 9:39 am

drago wrote:
RCBooba wrote:Yes, but more wars have been fought over religion than freedom of religion. "Separation of church and state" is a joke.

seperation of what? i don't follow? i thought you had to be catholic to be a republican?

huh. you better talk to the entire northeast

by **datrain711** Fri Aug 01, 2008 9:39 am

RCBooba wrote:Yes, but more wars have been fought over religion than freedom of religion. "Separation of church and state" is a joke.

why is it a joke? Do you know what separation of church and state is?

by **datrain711** Fri Aug 01, 2008 9:40 am

Mr. Reynolds wrote:if your a guy, no one is a fan of a condom

yeah i'd much rather lose 1/2 of my earnings

by **drago** Fri Aug 01, 2008 9:43 am

to me, seperation of church and state happened, then it went right back to what it was before. catholics = republicans because of abortion and things of the nature. They only seem to care about deaths that happen domestically, never mind the thousands that die every day on a different continant...they only care that an american kills a baby. Give me a break, american or african death is death, care about one, you should care about the other.

i care about neither, but at least i admitt it.

by Sponsored content