View Full Version : What do with think of China killing the Brit drug runner?
So just recently, China executed a guy from Britain that they caught smuggling drugs into China. His family and the British authorities were saying he was mentally ill and pleaded for his release. They said he was suffering from Bi-polar disorder. People dealing with Bi-polar disorder certainly do a bunch of crazy stuff, so I'm not at all surprised by this claim.
here is the article: http://www.punemirror.in/index.aspx?page=article§id=5&contentid=200912302009123000593224364cd335e§xslt=
What do you guys think of this? I'd likely feel differently if it was someone in my family, but from a third party perspective I feel like, "Well, sucks for that guy. China doesn't mess around, so don't mess around with China."
Kill 'em all I say. If he was bi-polar, his friends and family should've helped him out and gotten him to a doc or something. If he didn't have friends and family then he shouldn't have been such a dick.... If it was one of my friends or family, I would pull the trigger.
I have no dog in this race. I have no respect for drug dealers, etc no matter what their "excuse" is.
SA Friday
12-29-2009, 15:32
One breaks a foreign countries rules, one is punished in accordance with the foreign countries laws. You don't want to end up in a Turkish prison for 25 years, don't smuggle drugs in Turkey. You don't want to get your head chopped off in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, don't smuggle drugs in Saudi Arabia. You don't want to be executed in China, then don't smuggle drugs in China. You don't want to spend 60 days in jail, don't smuggle drugs in the USA.....[Bang]
You don't want to spend 60 days in jail, don't smuggle drugs in the USA.....[Bang]
60 days SA? Aren't you being a little harsh?!!!! (sarcasm)
But if you're a forgien national in the US, we'll just ship you back to your country.... after all, it's not your fault that you dind't know what the customs were in the US of O.
Like Wow maaannn that is some heavy punishment for the dude...
Where was his family to support him when he was homeless?
two shoes
12-29-2009, 15:55
One breaks a foreign countries rules, one is punished in accordance with the foreign countries laws. You don't want to end up in a Turkish prison for 25 years, don't smuggle drugs in Turkey. You don't want to get your head chopped off in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, don't smuggle drugs in Saudi Arabia. You don't want to be executed in China, then don't smuggle drugs in China. You don't want to spend 60 days in jail, don't smuggle drugs in the USA.....[Bang]
When I went to Saudi, I had to sign papers that I understood that smuggling drugs was punishable by DEATH to get my entrance visa... They do not screw around...
not really worried about it. one less drug runner in the world doesn't really bother me in the least.
I'm more looking for whether people support China's move or not. China has a bad rep about human rights, but there is no denying that they don't mess around. We need to take notes.
Bipolar or not, he knew what he was doing. China has a horrible record on human rights, but just because this yokel is a foreign national doesn't mean he should be treated any differently.
TSB as far as I'm concerned! You knowingly break the law in any country and you face the consequences if caught!
Wish we were tougher on criminals!
Murderers, rapists and child molesters should all face immediate execution! If nothing else it would save us a fortune as tax payers. Of course many hippie do gooders believe in re-form even for the crimes I listed. Naturally though they wouldn’t want them released in their neighborhoods!
Rant etc. over!
DD977GM2
12-29-2009, 16:32
I am all for what China did. If we executed drug smugglers in the US, things owuld be a lot diffrent and probably less of a drug epidemic.
When the SHTF for a family on a family member, excuses come out along with emotionaly backed personal descriptions of their family, such as,"He is a good man and was tricked into doing this or that." Such that the bi-polar thing came out. If they truely knew, then they should have helped him in some way.
I'm more looking for whether people support China's move or not. China has a bad rep about human rights, but there is no denying that they don't mess around. We need to take notes.
I am all for what china did and wish we took harsher punishment and didn't dilly-dally around here.
BUT, only when it is factual, HARD evidence...like when 5 people see a dude rape a girl, then kill her or something. kill him as soon as he walks out of the courtroom.
same more mass murderer....Hasan...needed to be shot the next day not have our tax dollars wasted for trial, put in jail, interviews etc. etc. only thing he should be interviewed for is evidence about who helped him, who talked with him, who he was working with or any connections to taliban.
If there is any doubt of evidence then time needs to be taken for people in the system to prove they are truly guilty. too many guys are locked up that are innocent only to be found innocent 20 years later.
I am talking about hardened criminals. we have no need for them, they obviously do not know what is right vs. wrong as far as murder and rape are concerned.
BPTactical
12-29-2009, 16:49
Their house...
Their rules...
Their consequences.....
[Hang]
Bailey Guns
12-29-2009, 17:07
I think you guys are looking at this from the wrong perspective.
China didn't kill the guy for smuggling drugs...they simply cured his mental illness. Look - he's no longer bipolar!
I think you guys are looking at this from the wrong perspective.
China didn't kill the guy for smuggling drugs...they simply cured his mental illness. Look - he's no longer bipolar!
LOL they cured him[Beer]
I'm of the 'sucks to be him' persuasion, but one thing that's not mentioned in the linked article is that his trial lasted half an hour, and Chinese authorities refused repeated requests for his mental state to be assessed, so there's no way of knowing (other than reading his bizarre backstory about trying to bring about world peace with a song about rabbits) whether he really was mentally ill or not.
Yeah, but their actions arent very health for international politics and relations. They could have at least turned him over to Great Britain and let them carry out a punishment.
I have limited experience with Bi-polar disorder, and while people will do absolutely crazy stuff (bankrupt your family buying recording equipment in an attempt to start the biggest recording company of the decade, while living in rural Wisconsin, or renting a back hoe and digging a 15 foot deep hole in the middle of your yard for a pool you can't even afford, then dropping the whole project 4 days later <-- both documented events), I don't know that it has enough of an effect on the mind that it would get you out of drug running. Bi-polar disorder causes people to go from extreme states of being either highly motivated, or severely depressed; neither changes your understanding of laws and rules though. Having a mental disorder is different than being mentally handicapped.
I generally dislike China and the way they operate. However, if given a more "fair" trial, they likely would have come to the same conclusion if the penalty for smuggling drugs is death.
Going by the articles I have read about this (I was a British citizen up until the end of October so I still read mostly UK-based news sites and it was all over them last night) he was befriended by someone who told him they could help launch his pop career in China and then did the whole "there's a problem with my ticket, can you take some of my luggage and I'll meet you there" thing. Yeah, it's incredibly stupid, but then this guy did seem to be incredibly stupid, but it doesn't seem like he explicitly knew what he was carrying and took a calculated risk.
GreenScoutII
12-29-2009, 18:34
Ok... I understand China is a sovreign country and they are entitled to make their own laws. As somebody else said, their house, their rules.
But GODDAMN!!!! DEATH for narcotics trafficing??!!??
That is just too fucked up to comtemplate. Even with that kind of penalty I'll bet they still have drug problems in their country..
Think about this for just a second. A guy has a substance intended for human consumption in his possession. Could be pot, could be cocaine, could be tobacco if a government decides so. The cops arrest the guy and then he is going to be fucking KILLED for having it.
That is too fucked up for words and a prime example of a government with way too much power.
I kind of lean that way as well, because I feel like the Chinese government is probably super corrupt and is protecting their own drug runners.
However, there is this little voice in my head that keeps telling me that strangers should face harsher punishment than locals (doesn't mean locals shouldn't be punished) to keep people from visiting and messing up your house.
Troublco
12-29-2009, 18:57
Ok... I understand China is a sovreign country and they are entitled to make their own laws. As somebody else said, their house, their rules.
But GODDAMN!!!! DEATH for narcotics trafficing??!!??
I think it's a bit harsh for drugs, especially when there are so many crimes that it should be mandatory for. Like the rape or murder of a child (And no, I'm not talking about a 16 year old here, not that I think that's OK but I'm speaking more of the folks who do these things to 3, 5, 7 year olds and such) for example.
Ya'll all miss the point,, If you can't do the time/punishment don't do the crime... Geez....
GreenScoutII
12-29-2009, 19:33
I'm not anti death penalty at all. Capital punishment definately has it's place in the justice system of our or any other country that chooses to employ it. I'm just saying it should be the punishment of last resort for the most serious and horrible offenses.
I mean, in our country through the efforts of the Inosence Project, there have been a fairly large number of death row inmates exonerated by DNA evidence. A misapplied death sentence is not something we can take back. If a society is going to execute someone for a crime, that society had better have absolute unquestionable proof before that sentence is caried out
I'm with you Troublco. God damned child molesters should be fed feet first through a wood chipper. No, I'm not talking about a 21 year old guy who gets busted with a 17 year old girl, I'm talking about the damn perverts who mess with little kids.
Yes, I am the father of four little girls....
I don't think anyone should face the death penalty for being stupid and/or getting swindled.
So I heard more info on this. China has a stipulation in their laws that allows for reduced sentences for mental illness. They refused to test for mental illness.
The guy had 9 pounds of heroine in a bag he said wasn't his (they ALL say that). China said that he had enough heroine to kill 23,000 people and that was their justification for killing the guy. Also, they asked Britain to apologize for harassing China about the guy. China is that fat kid at school that everyone hates, but are too afraid to push down the stairs.
Troublco
12-29-2009, 20:37
God damned child molesters should be fed feet first through a wood chipper. No, I'm not talking about a 21 year old guy who gets busted with a 17 year old girl, I'm talking about the damn perverts who mess with little kids.
Yes, I am the father of four little girls....
I think they should get a rope to hang on to. After the first couple feet (pun intended) have gone in. See how long they can hold on. And then publicize the heck out of it for the others. I'm sure I could get REALLY creative with some of them. I'd even settle for handing them over to the general prison population after announcing their crime and their new cell of residence. Nearly all of them have enough decency to not accept that sort of thing either.
And I did get the point; sort of like that punk kid vacationing with his family in Thailand a few years ago. He expected to be able to vandalize cars like he did back home, and when they got him, they were going to make SURE he understood what the word CONSEQUENCES meant. I think they should have done it.
I'm not sure about the stupid part. Is stupidity really an admissable (sp?) defense? The whole "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" thing seems to apply here. But I suppose you do have the "intent" issue, as well.
Pancho Villa
12-29-2009, 20:45
Moving on from death fantasies...
"Their house, their rules" seems asinine to me. Do we say that when someone shakes a baby to death for screaming too much? Their house, their rules, right?
Is that your response when the Taliban put people to death for being infidels, or not wearing a burka, or something like that? Their house, their rules, right?
There is what is right and what is wrong. I don't have any interest in drugs and no use for drug dealers (or most users,) but I also understand that there are right and wrong ways to treat people. To be honest I don't have much use for drug laws, my view being that any law meant to protect people from ruining their own lives simply creates a criminal underclass, costs taxpayers billions, and doesn't really prevent people from ruining their lives anyway.
I've known several drug addicts in my life. Never for very long, for obvious reasons, but they were losers before they got hooked. If you don't want your kids doing drugs, raise them to be self-confident, self-reliant and rational. The govt's laws won't help you at all on that end.
theGinsue
12-29-2009, 22:25
"Well, sucks for that guy. China doesn't mess around, so don't mess around with China."
Yup.
One breaks a foreign countries rules, one is punished in accordance with the foreign countries laws. You don't want to end up in a Turkish prison for 25 years, don't smuggle drugs in Turkey. You don't want to get your head chopped off in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, don't smuggle drugs in Saudi Arabia. You don't want to be executed in China, then don't smuggle drugs in China. You don't want to spend 60 days in jail, don't smuggle drugs in the USA.....[Bang]
Agreed SA. Isn't it sad that we have ridiculously weak punishments for some things and inordinately high punishments (comparatively so anyway) for others? I mean, a person could spend 30 days in jail with that drug dealer in for 60 days just for failing to pay a parking ticket. I'm not saying that the 30 days is necessarily too much, but next to the weak punishments for more egregious crimes just doesn't make sense.
Pancho - Your words were well said, but if you (not YOU, but any person) willingly commit a crime, whether you agree with the fact that it should be a crime or not, you can't complain when you are held accountable for that crime. If people think that the penalty for a particular crime is too severe, they should work to change it before they consider becoming subject to it.
Ya'll all miss the point,, If you can't do the time/punishment don't do the crime... Geez....
That's what I've always said. On TV, no less! :D
BPTactical
12-30-2009, 10:22
Moving on from death fantasies...
"Their house, their rules" seems asinine to me. Do we say that when someone shakes a baby to death for screaming too much? Their house, their rules, right?
Is that your response when the Taliban put people to death for being infidels, or not wearing a burka, or something like that? Their house, their rules, right?
There is what is right and what is wrong. I don't have any interest in drugs and no use for drug dealers (or most users,) but I also understand that there are right and wrong ways to treat people. To be honest I don't have much use for drug laws, my view being that any law meant to protect people from ruining their own lives simply creates a criminal underclass, costs taxpayers billions, and doesn't really prevent people from ruining their lives anyway.
I've known several drug addicts in my life. Never for very long, for obvious reasons, but they were losers before they got hooked. If you don't want your kids doing drugs, raise them to be self-confident, self-reliant and rational. The govt's laws won't help you at all on that end.
I think you may have taken my comment out of context.
I see your point and understand your stance and agree for the most part with your right and wrong outlook.
But when you are in a foreign country you are a GUEST in that country and are obligated to abide by "House" rules and customs.
If drug trafficking in that country carries a penalty of death and you choose to engage in trafficking drugs there then you have sown your own crop.
I agree that there is a right and wrong way to treat people and your examples of the Taliban and shaking a baby are perfect examples of "crimes against humanity" wrong.
But I have a different view on on the subject at hand.
He knowingly perpetrated a criminial act in a country that is known for harsh consequences for criminal acts.
He knew the risk.
He took the gamble.
He lost.
Remember a few years ago when there was all the hoopla surrounding the U.S. citizen (17 y.o. kid) in the Phillipines who had committed a crime and was to be caned?
The crime he commited carried the punishment of caning. He ended up getting caned.
He broke the law.
He suffered the consequences of his actions.
I had no sympathy for him.
Some justice systems work better than others.
We are far too weak on criminals and while you should have rights when you are accused of a crime why is it that a criminal seems to have endless rights?
The attornies and ACLU have fucked this country up.
[Beer]
I think there is a pretty big difference between the kid spray painting cars and some shady guy convincing this guy to take his bag to China with him.
Also... wouldn't it be nice if the lawyers/attorneys of wrongly convicted peoples had to do the time/punishment as well?
I like it.
Yes! Don't forget the police chief who is itching to placate the public by throwing someone under the bus for the crime, or whatever similar situation happens in real life.
ChunkyMonkey
12-30-2009, 18:22
I think you may have taken my comment out of
But I have a different view on on the subject at hand.
He knowingly perpetrated a criminial act in a country that is known for harsh consequences for criminal acts.
He knew the risk.
He took the gamble.
He lost.
Remember a few years ago when there was all the hoopla surrounding the U.S. citizen (17 y.o. kid) in the Phillipines who had committed a crime and was to be caned?
The crime he commited carried the punishment of caning. He ended up getting caned.
He broke the law.
He suffered the consequences of his actions.
I had no sympathy for him.
[Beer]
#1 The canning was in Singapore.
#2 Every single drug smuggler caught in foreign countries has the same defense. He/she always has no knowledge that there is drug in his/her bags.
[Beer]
theGinsue
12-30-2009, 19:44
That's what I've always said. On TV, no less! :D
Hmm. "RobertB" who said "If you can't pay the time, don't do the crime" on TV..... Are you Robert Blake?
Well, not that one, at least. ;)
Colorado Osprey
12-31-2009, 08:34
Yes! Don't forget the police chief who is itching to placate the public by throwing someone under the bus for the crime, or whatever similar situation happens in real life.
Not just the Police Chief... the DA and Judge have more to do the the conviction than the lowly Chief. Heck, even the arresting officer had more to do with the arrest than the Chief.
My personal view after being in and exiting law enforcement...
Don't pass laws that are not going to be enforced. I am anti-drug and have no problem with death penalty for criminal offences.
With our poor execution of many enforcements... or the DA not willing to prosecute... we need to toss all drug related offences off the books and make all drugs legal. Release all in jail/prison on drug offenses or make the punishment severe enough to deter that kind of behavior.
I'd have no problem erasing all laws passed since say.... 1950. Most are passed by law makers to make them feel that they are doing something to create revenue, better humanity, their district or to get them re-elected. They have no revelence on changing anything or being enforced to make the public safer.
Remember that saying,"If you don't have the time, don't do the crime."
A major problem with todays jails/prisons is that they are better environments than some's personal lives..3 squares, roof over their head... No bills!
Many people have never seen cable TV or satellite TV until they were in jail!
If jail was worse than everyones personal life including homeless people, they would not want to go there.
The PC has ruined our country when inmates have more rights than many that are out of jail/prison.
Back to the OP. I have no problem with foriegn governments/laws and people breaking them and having to do the punishment even if it includes death.
No one makes you go to foreign countries.... even if it was for a job, you don't have to take the job.
If that is for being a non-muslim, or not wearing a Berka, whatever.... MOVE... or FIGHT.
Isn't that supposedly where the founders and principals of our country came from?(I know it's false, but believed by many)
Moving on from death fantasies...
"Their house, their rules" seems asinine to me. Do we say that when someone shakes a baby to death for screaming too much? Their house, their rules, right?
Is that your response when the Taliban put people to death for being infidels, or not wearing a burka, or something like that? Their house, their rules, right?
Apples to oranges PV. Although you have a valid point, "Their House, Their Rules" is a pretty general statement and in this case it doesnt pertain to Shaken Baby Syndrome or Jihad. A drug runner is a scumbag no matter how you cut it, some places have different ways to punish these scumbags and in this case he picked the wrong house to fuck around in. He paid the toll; His bad.
Aloha_Shooter
12-31-2009, 09:47
I find it very difficult to sympathize with a drug runner. Most Asian countries are very tough on drug runners and drug pushers precisely because of China's experience with opium during the Colonial period. Singapore is harder on drug users and pushers than they are on murderers. If he had issues, his family should have helped him BEFORE he committed the crime. Having said that, China's adherence to strict legal procedure can be somewhat dubious so I have to qualify my thoughts.
IF he in fact was running illicit drugs, especially with intent to sell, then China is entirely justified and I have no sympathies. The rest of the drug-loving socialists in the ACLU and other organizations can go cry in their absinthe for all I care.
Aloha_Shooter
12-31-2009, 09:55
Ok... I understand China is a sovreign country and they are entitled to make their own laws. As somebody else said, their house, their rules.
But GODDAMN!!!! DEATH for narcotics trafficing??!!??
That is just too fucked up to comtemplate. Even with that kind of penalty I'll bet they still have drug problems in their country..
Think about this for just a second. A guy has a substance intended for human consumption in his possession. Could be pot, could be cocaine, could be tobacco if a government decides so. The cops arrest the guy and then he is going to be fucking KILLED for having it.
That is too fucked up for words and a prime example of a government with way too much power.
Yes, death. Trafficking in narcotics causes physical death, social death, societal death (the Western powers intentionally fostered opium trade in China to undermine the society and government during the Colonial era) so why so upset about the trafficker getting some of what s/he is dishing out? The only thing that's fucked up is the ACLU view of treating a trafficker with some harsh words and counseling. There would be far fewer traffickers in the US if we didn't mollycoddle them.
I'm going to get in trouble...
I think we are TOO lax in our punishments. I like the "old law" way of dealing with things.
You kill someone intentionally, we kill you.
You rob/steal, we cut off your hands.
etc.
Of course there are always exceptions and that's where discernment comes in. I'm just talking about hardend, third time offenders, etc type situations. I know a lot of people do drugs and stuff as a recreational pleasure and I do believe that that is their choice. However, if they harm others while doing it....
Such as a drunk driver killing someone in a wreck. He chose to drink and drive, he killed someone, he ought to be put to death. I have no problem with drinking, or with driving, nor even with drunks driving (a lot of them seem to be more cognizant than people on cell phones, etc! HAHA). If the drunk driver just knocks down a pole or runs through a house, he should be made to pay for it personally, not taxpayer money.
I think we are TOO lax in our punishments. I like the "old law" way of dealing with things.
You kill someone intentionally, we kill you.
You rob/steal, we cut off your hands.
etc.
Just to respectively disagree: that's what they do in shit holes like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. We're better than that. While I agree our legal system is too lax in general, turning it into some fundamentalist horror show is not the answer.
Pounding big rocks into little rocks everyday of your life till your sentence is up (if ever) is fine with me. No college degrees, no tv, no conjugal visits, no pumping iron till you're so big it takes a small army to wrestle you down, no fancy meals or medical care, no early parole. That life is fitting for most crimes and if we make a mistake at least some how it can be remedied and you can live what life you have left. Look at what's happening in TX if you think innocent people aren't convicted.
And as for the original tread: Break China's rules, pay China's price. If you don't agree with their punishments, don't do the crime in their country. I'm just glad we don't live in that shithole either.
Mutt, I see your point and will even agree to it. I guess the problem is that people in prison DO get college degrees, cable TV, hot meals, gyms, congugal visits, etc.
I guess what I was trying to say is that I sometimes think that if we "bluffed" (wrong terminology, but general idea) a more forceful attitude of "we won't put up with it" then maybe people would wisen up. I think a few public executions would do the trick, lol. Anywyas, another derailed thread.... I need to quit posting.
BigBear: Total agreement that our prisons are more scumbag free-for-all frat parties than prisons. I mean these guys actually run criminal enterprises on the outside from inside their cells. WTF??? Why do they even have the spare time and privacy to do so in prison? I am a fan of hard labor as a deterent. Dig ditches, build roads, get worked to the bone from sun up to sun down. You do this every day to repay society until you've served your entire sentence. No other benefits. If that actually happened and word of it got out, I think a lot of petty would be criminals would re-think their carreer choice.
Rgr, we are agreed. Good stuff. And they should dig with spoons, not a pick axe! lol.
rhineoshott
12-31-2009, 13:10
Really governments have no business regulating drugs or any goods for that matter (be it alchahol, fireworks, weapons etc.). Of course we all know that China's government is waaay whacked already. China kills a lot of people who don't deserve the capital punishment.
I doubt it is difficult to give orders out of prison. You talk to a guy, he tells his girl that visits him, shit gets done on the outside. Easy as that.
I doubt it is difficult to give orders out of prison. You talk to a guy, he tells his girl that visits him, shit gets done on the outside. Easy as that.
on gang wars they say coded phone calls take care of a lot of it.
GreenScoutII
12-31-2009, 13:49
Really governments have no business regulating drugs or any goods for that matter (be it alchahol, fireworks, weapons etc.). Of course we all know that China's government is waaay whacked already. China kills a lot of people who don't deserve the capital punishment.
Yep... Legislating morality is losing proposition. Are you a fellow Libertarian?
I doubt it is difficult to give orders out of prison. You talk to a guy, he tells his girl that visits him, shit gets done on the outside. Easy as that.
Problem is it shouldn't be easy as that. No visits from your girlfriend, you're in fucking prison. No cell phones, you're in fucking prison. You should be so damned tired at the end of the day from hard labor that all you can think about is going to sleep because you have to be up at the crack of dawn to do it again.
Yep... Legislating morality is losing proposition. Are you a fellow Libertarian?
Agreed. There was a time in this country when the govt had zero say in what you put in or did to your body. You want to do coke, fine, go ahead. You're free to snort your life away if you so choose. Now if you commit a crime while high, you pay the price for the crime you committed.
Freedom is the right to be free and live with the consequences of your choices (good or bad). Freedom is not the 'right' to have the nanny state strip away everyone's freedom in the name of protecting you from yourself.
This guy is awesome, but he probably got in trouble for doing this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urmNgoad2ys&feature=player_embedded
rhineoshott
12-31-2009, 14:34
Yep... Legislating morality is losing proposition. Are you a fellow Libertarian?
Pretty much. My only slight difference with Libertarians is that sometimes they won't say that government can restrict/punish for pornography or homosexuality ect. That is the civil government's responsibility.
See Leviticus 20:13.
Didn't mean to Derail the thread.
rhineoshott
12-31-2009, 14:36
This guy is awesome, but he probably got in trouble for doing this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urmNgoad2ys&feature=player_embedded
SWEET!
This guy is awesome, but he probably got in trouble for doing this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urmNgoad2ys&feature=player_embedded
that was awesome
punish for homosexuality? please.
Pretty much. My only slight difference with Libertarians is that sometimes they won't say that government can restrict/punish for pornography or homosexuality ect. That is the civil government's responsibility.
See Leviticus 20:13.
Didn't mean to Derail the thread.
No, they shouldn't legislate against those. Pornography, no matter how one might revile it, is protected by the pesky 1st amendment. Homosexuality, again no matter if you find it abhorrent, is a private matter that is no business of the govt.
Obviously you're religious, awesome. You are free to cope with the challenges in life however you see fit, so long as it doesn't infringe on my right to do the same in my way.
Using any religious text as a literal basis for civil and criminal law is another really bad idea. See Saudi Arabia, or any fundamentalist muslim nation, as a perfect example of what happens when one specific religious thought makes the rules.
Agreed. Have a good ChristNew Years guys. I'm going home. ;)
rhineoshott
12-31-2009, 15:09
Well there you have it my friends. We differ in one of our viewpoints. Please don't see any of this as a major disagreement. I see eye to eye with all of you on 98% of political opinions. This is just one fine point of what makes up what we I believe.
I don't see the Bible as a religous text, rather the fundamental fiber of how we ought to live. Homosexuality no more a perosnal choice than two friends helping each other commit suicide. It's a crime.
Now, I don't have a whole lot of time to work on long responses. Please forgive me in advance for not defending adaquately, my position.
I doubt it is difficult to give orders out of prison. You talk to a guy, he tells his girl that visits him, shit gets done on the outside. Easy as that.
I know in the UK right now they're finding more and more criminals with cell phones that have been smuggled in to them. There have even been a couple of cases of prisoners updating their facebook pages while inside. I imagine it's possible that it's happened here too.
I don't see the Bible as a religous text, rather the fundamental fiber of how we ought to live. Homosexuality no more a perosnal choice than two friends helping each other commit suicide. It's a crime.
With respect, you probably want to be careful if you are going to use the Book of Leviticus as a moral guide. There's more in there than just putting homosexuals to death.
rhineoshott
12-31-2009, 15:16
With respect, you probably want to be careful if you are going to use the Book of Leviticus as a moral guide. There's more in there than just putting homosexuals to death.
I know [Coffee]
rhineoshott
12-31-2009, 15:20
This guy describes perfectly what I believe. If you're really interested, you might want to check him out. His radio show was on AM 670 but this morning was the last air over the radio. He's still going to record and "air" new shows over the web.
http://generationswithvision.com/default.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
Aloha_Shooter
12-31-2009, 23:10
Pornography, no matter how one might revile it, is protected by the pesky 1st amendment.
To be completely accurate, pornography might or might not be protected by the First Amendment if it wasn't for revisionism by the ACLU and Warren/Berger Supreme Courts. The Founding Fathers wrote the First Amendment to protect political speech (as is indicated extensively by their discussions about it). Of course the irony today is that the ACLU and various parties want to restrict that pesky Right Wing speech with the inconvenient citations of what left wing politicians have actually said or done while they want to use the First Amendment to protect sex of all kinds and promote it to minors.
I thought that Christmas guy was suppose to fix the rules on the old books.
I dislike Drug laws, but this guy choose to break the law and he lost.
What bad is the West is more upset that they killed him and I haven't read anything about a change in the War on Drugs being part of the problem. They boost the price and the risk.
Such is the same with the tougher immigration rules. We be people.
To be completely accurate, pornography might or might not be protected by the First Amendment if it wasn't for revisionism by the ACLU and Warren/Berger Supreme Courts. The Founding Fathers wrote the First Amendment to protect political speech (as is indicated extensively by their discussions about it). Of course the irony today is that the ACLU and various parties want to restrict that pesky Right Wing speech with the inconvenient citations of what left wing politicians have actually said or done while they want to use the First Amendment to protect sex of all kinds and promote it to minors.
The 1st Amendment makes no distinction between political and non-political speech:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The text expressly forbids Govt from passing laws that restrict speech and the press. Now there's nothing stopping private individuals from suppressing free speech. This is why the moderators of this board can forbid certain topics or remove posts without facing legal recourse. Only the Govt is forbidden from such activity.
Pornography, like it or not, cannot be suppressed by the Govt unless it was created using illegal means (eg child porn). We The People however have the power to essentially outlaw porn by not consuming it, voting with our wallets so to speak. Apparently a good chunk of We The People see no problem with it.
Careful trying to use The Constitution to stifle ideas you don't agree with. Freedom is the right to offend, not the right to not be offended. Would you feel the 1st Amendment only protected political speech if the Govt suddenly passed a law forbidding the discussion of 'dangerous' firearms and related topics? Last I looked discussing the internal workings of an AR15 isn't 'political'. My 2 cents.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.