death penalty

happychem said:
What a great debate! And more importantly, kudos to the cool-headedness that's been kept even while heatedly debating!

I agree whole-heartedly!!!

happychem said:
I think that for them, the best deterrent would be to make prison life a truly miserable experience. It should be the very last place one would want to be, but I know for a fact that it is not. There are plenty of folks back home who would just as soon be in prison as in their grimy little apartment. But not only that, they should be working to repay society for their wrongs, and then some for our trouble. IMO, if you're not fit to be a part of society, then you should be put to work to help it out, not be a drain on it.

Prison should be like Azkaban in "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban". THEN nobody would willingly do stuff that would land them in prison. Many, many prisons are horrible places, but most range from tolerable to somewhat-pleasant-you-only-know-you're-in-prison-because-you-can't-leave. Sometimes prisoners are sent to prisons that are equal to their crimes, others aren't.

Murderers, rapist, child molesterers and child abusers, and drug dealers who knowingly endanger the lives of kids (deal near schools, use kids to deal or as mules) should be in the worst prisons of them all... NO tv, NO radio, NO books or magazines, NO painting or other hobby things. Prisoners should only be allowed 5 minutes of fresh air per day, taken out 3-5 at a time so as to not allow mingling. Showers? Once a week, if that. Meals should all be in their cells. NO visitors except attorneys, and that's only if your case has an appeal pending. I could go on and on... ack... I just don't have the patience for horrible people who are not getting their due.

~Tara
 
Hey, while we are at it, can we alter the rules governing dead-beat parents to make it a child negligence charge? Felony if they are over $1000.00 behind, etc??
 
I have to agree with everybody. I have enjoyed the debating with out people losing their cool. :dance

happychem said:
The problem with the invasion of Iraq is that it was entered into for the wrong pretenses. Yes, there was a brutal dictator, but the country was nonetheless in a state of relative peace before the invasion. There weren't any human rights atrocities actively being comitted, at least none that were being reported. History has shown that there was indeed no evidence of weapon of mass destruction, and from the little I understand of nuclear weapons, you cannot build them in the back of a truck.

DID PRESIDENT BUSH LIE ABOUT WMD? OR WAS HE GUILTY OF LISTENING TO THESE "EXPERTS?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
 
Man this has gotten way off topic.... Maybe this has been built up for too long. :D

chunksofpoooo said:
I might get a few Bush supporters riled up with this comment.... but you guys won the election so I don’t care. I don’t think that Iraq was about removing Sadaam, hell, I don’t even think that Iraq was about Weapons of mass destruction. I think it was about Bush's falling approval rating. The war in Afghanistan wasn't showing results....I mean, how could it? It was a war on terrorism, which is a lot harder to fight considering there aren’t any defined enemies....your next target could be that dude standing over there, or it could be that old lady walking up to you (if you remember Vietnam, the VC used civilians as walking bombs). When we moved to Iraq because of "weapons of mass destruction" and "a threat to peace loving countries everywhere", we immediately were able to see results. We continually bashed our way in and "won" the war (I say "won" because we're still fighting). We were "fighting the good fight" and kicking some serious butt. If you look back, Bush's increased approval rating and the movement in Iraq link up pretty well.

I'M CONFUSED ON THIS...

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Clinton says mass graves in Serbia - good...
Entire world says WMD in Iraq - bad...

Clinton says Saddam has nukes -- good...
Bush says Saddam has nukes -- bad...

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists - good...
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator -- bad...

Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...
 
i never said anything about Clinton being good...

quite frankly i think the man should be castrated, but thats just my opinion. All im saying is that the switch to Iraq was a bit odd, and it came at an interesting time
 
happychem said:
This is getting off topic, but it's still a good debate.

....... and from the little I understand of nuclear weapons, you cannot build them in the back of a truck.......

My post was to show how Iraq kept 'thumbing it's nose' at U.N. inspections. Supplies are brought in by truck, and brought out by truck. There was a lot of video proof of this on the news at the time....
 
chunksofpoooo said:
i never said anything about Clinton being good...
....All im saying is that the switch to Iraq was a bit odd, and it came at an interesting time

I was trying to compare that Clinton did just what you posted, but he didn't get the same remarks thrown out about him. It was like he got a free pass on what was being put out in the media.

chunksofpoooo said:
quite frankly i think the man should be castrated, but thats just my opinion.

See we can agree on somethings. :laugh:
 
Do I get to use the rusty saw, oh please, let me :D
 
greeneyedlady said:
Do I get to use the rusty saw, oh please, let me :D

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
 
AquariaCentral.com