Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jun, 2003 12:22 pm
booman

There are many of us of like mind. I simply cannot imagine that living in prison for the rest of your life can be preferable to death -- and have argued that point for thirty years.


I'm sure the fear of death for the inmate is huge -- and I understand that is the reason for why they try so hard to beat the death penalty -- but that merely reinforces my opinion that living in prison is worse than the death penalty.

Let 'em fear death -- violent death -- every day!

Maybe those island prisons like depicted in Escape from New York or Escape from LA are the way to go. Keep the violent sickos segregated and let 'em wallow in their own excrement if that is what they want.

I honestly don't actively debate against the death penalty. There are times where my charitable side takes control -- and I say give the monsters a peaceful, easy death.

I do hate the idea that the rest of the modern, industrial world has pretty much come to the conclusion that capital punishment is barbaric -- yet we are still on the same side of the coin as countries like Saudi Arabia.
0 Replies
 
Booman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jun, 2003 12:35 pm
How true...And the bottom line is, Pre-meditated murder, is pre-meditated murder. Just as governments have their justification, or "reason" for the murder, so do the original perps. (i,e,. poverty, political, "God told me", etc.,etc..)
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jun, 2003 11:36 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
booman

There are many of us of like mind. I simply cannot imagine that living in prison for the rest of your life can be preferable to death -- and have argued that point for thirty years.


I'm sure the fear of death for the inmate is huge -- and I understand that is the reason for why they try so hard to beat the death penalty -- but that merely reinforces my opinion that living in prison is worse than the death penalty.

Let 'em fear death -- violent death -- every day!

Maybe those island prisons like depicted in Escape from New York or
Escape from LA are the way to go. Keep the violent sickos segregated and let 'em wallow in their own excrement if that is what they want.

I honestly don't actively debate against the death penalty. There are times where my charitable side takes control -- and I say give the monsters a peaceful, easy death.

I do hate the idea that the rest of the modern, industrial world has pretty
much come to the conclusion that capital punishment is barbaric -- yet we are still on the same side of the coin as countries like Saudi Arabia.



Exactly!!!
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jun, 2003 11:53 pm
McGentrix wrote:
My feelings

-By McGentrix

Having come here to A2K recently, and in search of relevent, challenging political discussion, I was eager to expand my knowledge base to encompass new opinions and ideas. I was then swallowed up into a cult of hate the like I have not seen elsewhere. The sheer hatred put forth by many of the members of this place was quite daunting. I had to change many of my personal opinions just to try to stay afloat upon this ocean of hatred and hostility. Everywhere I looked, I found criticism and hatred of many things that I hold dear. Now realize, that I could have left at any time and not been any worse for the experience, but I found some small islands of common thought and even some brief moments of actual insight into the "other" side which kept me here.

One of the things that really bothers me is the insistant attitude that America is some dark, evil place where 6 people rule with an iron thumb and that every one is enslaved to the government. It saddens me to think that is what some people see and think when America is brought up. I see a country that is one of the only beacons of freedom and justice in the world. I see a country that has a more diverse population, more influential culture, and more freedoms than any other in the world.

There are many countries in this world that are very inhospitable and I am thankful that I do not live in them. I am glad that I have the freedom to do as I choose and that I never have to fear many of the things that people in other countries have to fear, no matter what many people will say, America is still the greatest place in the world to live. I support my country and though I may not agree with everything that the current leaders do, I know that I can personally effect change without pissing and moaning about it. I know that no one is beyond being voted out of office.

So, my opinion about that article? It made me thankful that I don't live there.


First of all, if you think you found hate on A2K then I'd really hate to see what you'll find elsewhere. The people on A2k are the kindest people I've ever met on the internet and I've been around for awhile. You say that we are full of hate, yet you are the one who seems so gung hoe in killing everything in sight. If you want to walk around in the dark, that's your business, but don't think you're going to make people as blind as you are. We happen to be a community that believes in keeping our eyes open.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2003 12:03 am
By the way McGentrix, have you digested the info yet that I gave you much earlier in this thread? I'd be very interested in what you'd have to say about the information I gave you!
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2003 01:49 am
Today' 'Guardian' prints an extract from 'Le Monde Dipliomatique'
America's imperial delusion by Eric Hobsbawm, which, IMHO, is interesting in the context of the original question.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2003 02:29 am
Walter - you have to pay to view the article.

Any chance of a post containing it?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2003 05:38 am
I guaran-damn-tee ya i'll not pay to see anything Hobshawm has written . . .
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2003 06:37 am
Thanks, Montana.

And I agree with your assessment of A2K participants.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2003 06:46 am
dlowan

The short(er) version is here Guardian (which I actually wanted to post :wink: ).


(If I had to pay for, boss, I wouldn't read your stuff neither Laughing .)
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2003 06:54 am
Hell, I wouldn't even pay to read MY stuff.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2003 06:56 am
I can't hear you blatham :wink:
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2003 06:58 am
Quote:
Has America Become a Bullyboy?

ROGUE NATION
American Unilateralism
and the Failure of Good Intentions

In October, 1999, candidate George W. Bush told a campaign audience: "If we are a humble nation, [other nations] will see that and respect us." Alas, if only Bush as President had stuck to that idea. Instead, in case after case, the new Administration seemed to thumb its nose needlessly at the rest of the world. It walked away from a welter of international agreements, such as one setting up an International Criminal Court, the Kyoto Treaty on climate change, and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia. Indeed, Washington looked to be ditching the very concept of multilateralism, an underpinning of the global system since the end of World War II. In September, 2002, the Administration published the National Security Strategy of the United States of America, enshrining the doctrines of preemptive war and overwhelming U.S. military superiority. That document -- and the Iraq war that followed -- confirmed for many foreigners that the U.S. had become the bully of the block.

If you want to find out how the U.S. lost the once ample reserves of political goodwill it held around the world, Clyde Prestowitz' persuasive and well-documented Rogue Nation: American Unilateralism and the Failure of Good Intentions is the book for you. In the view of Prestowitz, a self-styled small-government conservative and a chief trade negotiator with Japan during the Reagan years, the Bush Administration is squarely to blame. "The imperial project of the so-called neo-conservatives is not conservatism at all but radicalism, egotism, and adventurism articulated in the stirring rhetoric of traditional patriotism," he writes. Compared with that language, criticisms of U.S. policy by German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder sound positively tame. Don't count on Prestowitz getting a job in a second Bush Administration.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_24/b3837024_mz005.htm
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2003 07:17 am
Setanta - I find Walter's link a reasonable analysis - what is your objection?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2003 07:19 am
Blatham

Indeed these idiots have squandered our good-will across the world. They think they have improved things by (in their minds) making the rest of the world afraid of us.

They are small thinkers.

All we can do is to be rid of them at the first opportunity.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2003 07:24 am
I didn't object to the link, CC, i object to the notion of paying to read anything written by Mr. Hobshawm--who is full of himself, and operates under the delusion that only he understands history and all others merely attempt, and fail, to interpret it. Mr. Hobshawm has interesting things to say, and he's done journeyman service in the collection, collation and sifting of social and economic statistics. However, he proceeds from there to the assumption that only he truly sees events for what they were, that individuals matter little in history, and that all others of his profession are deluded if they do not agree with him. He's a good historian; he's also an ego-maniac of legendary proportions.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2003 07:27 am
McGentrix

Re 'hate'...if you consider what you've seen here as hate, you've lived a very sheltered life...and haven't done a lot of reading.

What you do see here is a reflection of a broad internal and international response to (particularly, though not exclusively) certain present US administration ideas and policies.

You say you support your government. That's simply idioticly undiscerning or intellectually lazy, take your pick. Had Ralph Nader won the election, would we hear the same cheer? Ought all citizens of all communities to 'support' their government regardless? Or is it just Americans, who, with freshly scrubbed faces and innocent hearts and who are the clear favs of god that can march onward in confidence their leaders are just dang good guys?

Not to mention the implicit framing in the term 'support'...against whom? Anyone in disagreement? The French? Montana and myself in our weird canuck toques? Walter - who is a Gerry? Patchouli-soaked nut jobs who actually might have read and understood the significance of spotted owls as an indicator species? And please do not cry us a river about 9-11...it's deeply unlikely that you were touched by that event any more than anyone else here...and we'll just note that no other countries (but one) who've suffered terrorist attacks went and got all huffy and did the 'it's with us or against us' thing and sent air armadas out to bomb the hell out of folks who looked suspiciously dark skinned.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2003 07:38 am
Fair enough, Setanta - but what do you think of the MEAT of the article Walter links us to?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2003 07:57 am
Well, Cunning Coney, please note that i have credited Mr. Hobshawm with being a competent historian--and he shows as much here. I would note that he overrates American military power, as do most outside observers, who are simply overawed by an ability of force projection which their own nations would likely never enjoy. In fact, the United States is dangerously overextended, and that in a period after Rummy began a program to reduce the military. The current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan is likely to mitigate against the reenlistment of currently serving members, which raises the prospect of the United States relying upon enlisted men and women making a one-time commitment--and therefore relying on troops with training only, and no experience. It will be crucial for the future professionalism, and therefore the effectiveness, of the American military to retain a solid core of experienced non-commissioned officers.

Hobshawm wrote:
In fact the present US policy is more unpopular than the policy of any other US government has ever been, and probably than that of any other great power has ever been.


This is the only extravagent and unsupportable statement i found of his in the article. We're all given, in discussing such topics, to making extravagent statements, and his article is by and large a reasonable and measured statement. This particular statement ignores the burning antipathy felt toward the Romans both within and around the borders of their empire; it ignores the hatred of the British in the 19th century (it does not surprise me that he does not take this into account--and likely, he would deny it); it ignores the standing resentment of the "horse barbarians" toward the Chinese Imperium throughout a period of millenia.

It's a good article--he's a good historian. But i can only imagine the vitriol he would engage in--as he has done in the past--were anyone with significant credentials to contradict him. Given his good analysis, he would be right to defend this--my experience is that he would get vicious, and his response would be over the top.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2003 08:01 am
"Horse barbarians"...."rabbit barbarians"...a connection?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 02:48:13