these are our allies??

[rdean]

Of course they are our allies. A Saudi Prince has been gobbling up Fox news and boasts he can get them to change their programming. Foreign owned Fox news is followed religiously by the American right wing. Apparently they trust the Arabians more than they trust Americans.

In fact, they love Muslims so much, they lied us into a war, and replaced a secular government with a far right Islamic Theocracy.

Now, isn't that weird. The right wing Christians in this country hate Muslims. But in Iraq, they love the Muslims and stood by and watched as Iraqi Christians were slaughtered. So strange.

They love Iraq so much, those 50 thousand left behind were part of Bush/Republican treaties and contracts. Obama couldn't take them out if he wanted to. Republicans want to rebuild Iraq, but screw this country. We don't have the money.

But turning Iraq into an Islamic Theocracy will make us "safe". This is how he Republicans think. It's the same logic that rich people and corporations will "take care of us".

 

[eagleseven]

But turning Iraq into an Islamic Theocracy will make us "safe". This is how he Republicans think. It's the same logic that rich people and corporations will "take care of us".

I've always wondered...does the DNC pay you per post, or a monthly sum for keeping a presence here?

 

[uscitizen]

Concerned with their feelings no. I just do not think it is our place to mess in other nations business. We would not like them messing in ours would we?

As to the nukes. Walk softly but carry a big stick.

I recall the "bomb" paranoia of the past. Duck and cover drills in school, bomb shelters, etc.

I don't get you..

You say you're a fiscal conservative, you preach non-interventionism now, apparently...You're a fucking libertarian!

Why are you so against the Pauls?

Ahh trying to pigeonhole me.
Can't be done.
The pauls are pipedreamers. And Rand has ZERO experience unless you count being an Opthalomoligist?
Trey Grayson on the other hand I would have voted for.

I have always been non interventionist. I suppose being in Vietnam contributed to that.
I try and look at things from at least 2 perspectives. Not just the US perspective.

 

[Paulie]

Concerned with their feelings no. I just do not think it is our place to mess in other nations business. We would not like them messing in ours would we?

As to the nukes. Walk softly but carry a big stick.

I recall the "bomb" paranoia of the past. Duck and cover drills in school, bomb shelters, etc.

I don't get you..

You say you're a fiscal conservative, you preach non-interventionism now, apparently...You're a fucking libertarian!

Why are you so against the Pauls?

Ahh trying to pigeonhole me.
Can't be done.
The pauls are pipedreamers. And Rand has ZERO experience unless you count being an Opthalomoligist?
Trey Grayson on the other hand I would have voted for.

What about Ron?

Ron's a pipedreamer, who happens to pipedream about the same fucking shit that YOU pipedream about.

 

[Samson]

But turning Iraq into an Islamic Theocracy will make us "safe". This is how he Republicans think. It's the same logic that rich people and corporations will "take care of us".

The biggest mistake Bush made was trying to democratize Iraq.

rdean, you fucking robot.

 

[Samson]

But turning Iraq into an Islamic Theocracy will make us "safe". This is how he Republicans think. It's the same logic that rich people and corporations will "take care of us".

I've always wondered...does the DNC pay you per post, or a monthly sum for keeping a presence here?

The Republican Leadership Council passes the hat around during their weekly meeting, then they slip an envelope under the conference room door.

 

[uscitizen]

I don't get you..

You say you're a fiscal conservative, you preach non-interventionism now, apparently...You're a fucking libertarian!

Why are you so against the Pauls?

Ahh trying to pigeonhole me.
Can't be done.
The pauls are pipedreamers. And Rand has ZERO experience unless you count being an Opthalomoligist?
Trey Grayson on the other hand I would have voted for.

What about Ron?

Ron's a pipedreamer, who happens to pipedream about the same fucking shit that YOU pipedream about.

Paul goes much farther than I do. Paul is for basically total deregulation of industry.
And the govt only providing a military and such.
Plus Paul votes about 75% of the time with the Bush republicans.

I am a blend of several political thoughts.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

CAIRO – A Saudi judge has asked several hospitals in the country whether they could damage a man's spinal cord as punishment after he was convicted of attacking another man with a cleaver and paralyzing him, the brother of the victim said Thursday.

Abdul-Aziz al-Mutairi, 22, was left paralyzed and subsequently lost a foot after a fight more than two years ago. He asked a judge in northwestern Tabuk province to impose an equivalent punishment on his attacker under Islamic law, his brother Khaled al-Mutairi told The Associated Press by telephone from there.

He said one of the hospitals, located in Tabuk, responded that it is possible to damage the spinal cord, but it added that the operation would have to be done at another more specialized facility. Saudi newspapers reported that a second hospital in the capital Riyadh declined, saying it could not inflict such harm.


Saudi judge considers paralysis punishment - Yahoo! News

what is your opinion of this punishment? i often hear people say 'an eye for an eye'
but isnt this the law that people dont want to come to the us?

Its our future.

 

[rdean]

But turning Iraq into an Islamic Theocracy will make us "safe". This is how he Republicans think. It's the same logic that rich people and corporations will "take care of us".

I've always wondered...does the DNC pay you per post, or a monthly sum for keeping a presence here?

No, I just get so sick of the right wing lies that I just feel it's important for people to read the truth once in a while.

Like about Iraq for instance. The right insists they are now a "democracy". Either they are lying or they don't know what a democracy is. Do YOU know what a democracy is?

theocracy -
the belief in government by divine guidance
A government ruled by or subject to religious authority

Does the following (from the Iraqi Constitution) fit that description?

Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:

A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.


Republicans did this and now they want to govern again. What will they do this time? I don't want to find out.

 

[eagleseven]

Concerned with their feelings no. I just do not think it is our place to mess in other nations business. We would not like them messing in ours would we?

And yet, the world does, regardless of our feelings.

If you don't think other nations are actively manipulating our government at every opportunity, you have a very rosy view of the world.

As to the nukes. Walk softly but carry a big stick.

At this rate, every tinpot dictator will have a big stick.

I recall the "bomb" paranoia of the past. Duck and cover drills in school, bomb shelters, etc.

Just because we haven't seen a nuclear attack in 70 years, does not mean we will never see a nuclear attack again.

I think a national security policy of "praying that nothing bad happens" is unwise.

 

[Samson]

But turning Iraq into an Islamic Theocracy will make us "safe". This is how he Republicans think. It's the same logic that rich people and corporations will "take care of us".

I've always wondered...does the DNC pay you per post, or a monthly sum for keeping a presence here?

No, I just get so sick of the right wing lies that I just feel it's important for people to read the truth once in a while.

Like about Iraq for instance. The right insists they are now a "democracy".

The truthmatters to you...hmmmmm......then why do you feel the need to embellish it with so much silliness as to make yourself incredulous?

I'm not great fan of idealogs in either extreme, but I cannot see disagreeing that Iraq is more democratic today than it was under Saddam. Is it a perfect democracy? No. Do I think democracy is "Good" for Iraq?" No. Do I think the Bush Administration is blowing smoke attempting to democratize a muslim country? Clearly.

But the issue isn't whether its a "Right Wing Conspiracy," but rather the naivete of pointy headed bureaucrats, and politicos trying to appease everyone.

 

[CountofTuscany]

CAIRO – A Saudi judge has asked several hospitals in the country whether they could damage a man's spinal cord as punishment after he was convicted of attacking another man with a cleaver and paralyzing him, the brother of the victim said Thursday.

Abdul-Aziz al-Mutairi, 22, was left paralyzed and subsequently lost a foot after a fight more than two years ago. He asked a judge in northwestern Tabuk province to impose an equivalent punishment on his attacker under Islamic law, his brother Khaled al-Mutairi told The Associated Press by telephone from there.

He said one of the hospitals, located in Tabuk, responded that it is possible to damage the spinal cord, but it added that the operation would have to be done at another more specialized facility. Saudi newspapers reported that a second hospital in the capital Riyadh declined, saying it could not inflict such harm.


Saudi judge considers paralysis punishment - Yahoo! News

what is your opinion of this punishment? i often hear people say 'an eye for an eye'
but isnt this the law that people dont want to come to the us?

This is where a fine line starts to get drawn around how much influence do we have on someone else's customs. We preach we are tollerant of the ways of others and in the next breath we condemn them when they are different from ours. Do we have a right to change the laws of anothers land?

 

[lizzie]

here is what i see....a bunch over here hate muslims...except for saudi muslims....if one truly fears the advance of sharia law or whatever the hell its called...then one needs to take a stand against being allied with muslims.

...but people need to make up their minds about muslims, one way or another

What it really boils down to imo is that we must do business with whoever has what we need, and since Saudis have oil, and we basically won't use our own resources, we depend on them.

Doing business with Muslim nations doesn't mean that we can tell them how to act or how to live. Their culture is rightfully their own. I don't hate Muslims at all, and I have quite a few Muslim friends. I don't personally know anyone who hates Muslims. As for Muslim nations, I may not agree with some of their practices, but they must make their own changes. When we try to intercede, all it will accomplish is to make all of them hate us.

My personal stance on the issue is be friends and business partners, but don't try to be family.

 

[lizzie]

CAIRO – A Saudi judge has asked several hospitals in the country whether they could damage a man's spinal cord as punishment after he was convicted of attacking another man with a cleaver and paralyzing him, the brother of the victim said Thursday.

Abdul-Aziz al-Mutairi, 22, was left paralyzed and subsequently lost a foot after a fight more than two years ago. He asked a judge in northwestern Tabuk province to impose an equivalent punishment on his attacker under Islamic law, his brother Khaled al-Mutairi told The Associated Press by telephone from there.

He said one of the hospitals, located in Tabuk, responded that it is possible to damage the spinal cord, but it added that the operation would have to be done at another more specialized facility. Saudi newspapers reported that a second hospital in the capital Riyadh declined, saying it could not inflict such harm.


Saudi judge considers paralysis punishment - Yahoo! News

what is your opinion of this punishment? i often hear people say 'an eye for an eye'
but isnt this the law that people dont want to come to the us?

Its our future.

Damn- that's a scary thought.

 

[lizzie]

theocracy -
the belief in government by divine guidance
A government ruled by or subject to religious authority

Does the following (from the Iraqi Constitution) fit that description?

Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:

A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.


Republicans did this and now they want to govern again. What will they do this time? I don't want to find out.

If you're afraid of Republicans trying to replicate this, you're barking up the wrong tree. As for Iraqis, it's their constitution to write as they please. In the Muslim world (in general) religion is much more significant in the lives of the general population than we see here. They are already divided enough by tribalism, and their religion is part of the glue that holds them together as a culture. Is it a culture that I would want to be a part of? No. But it's theirs to live as they see fit. When they are ready for a more "western" style of governance, they will have it.

 

[Spoonman]

here is what i see....a bunch over here hate muslims...except for saudi muslims....if one truly fears the advance of sharia law or whatever the hell its called...then one needs to take a stand against being allied with muslims.

...but people need to make up their minds about muslims, one way or another

What it really boils down to imo is that we must do business with whoever has what we need, and since Saudis have oil, and we basically won't use our own resources, we depend on them.

Doing business with Muslim nations doesn't mean that we can tell them how to act or how to live. Their culture is rightfully their own. I don't hate Muslims at all, and I have quite a few Muslim friends. I don't personally know anyone who hates Muslims. As for Muslim nations, I may not agree with some of their practices, but they must make their own changes. When we try to intercede, all it will accomplish is to make all of them hate us.

My personal stance on the issue is be friends and business partners, but don't try to be family.

You do now. LOL

 

[Spoonman]

Let's go for an eye for an eye. Why not? Why shouldn't the punishment fit the crime. It might be a deterent. I think it would.

In some cases though would the eye for an eye be equitable. A man rapes a women and gets her pregnant. Or gives her an infectious disease. What do you do? Rape him? How do you deal with the pregnancy of disease? You can't impact him that way. Let's say someone kills your three children, but he has none? What do you do then? Or is murder just repaid with death regardless.

The punishment should fit the crime but there is a lot to consider.

 

[lizzie]

Let's go for an eye for an eye. Why not? Why shouldn't the punishment fit the crime. It might be a deterent. I think it would.

In some cases though would the eye for an eye be equitable. A man rapes a women and gets her pregnant. Or gives her an infectious disease. What do you do? Rape him? How do you deal with the pregnancy of disease? You can't impact him that way. Let's say someone kills your three children, but he has none? What do you do then? Or is murder just repaid with death regardless.

The punishment should fit the crime but there is a lot to consider.

True, but it's difficult to have an "eye for an eye" system unless we're living in the wild west. I have no problem with the death penalty IF guilt can be determined with no doubt whatsoever. When you get into crimes such as rape, there's really no option for "an eye for an eye" justice. Then we have the reality we are living in where many of our prisoners are in prison for drug possession, which can't really be remedied with that type of justice either. What about theives? Cut off their hands? This is what you might see in an eye for an eye society, but is not considered humane in the western world. We pretty much have to live within our own ideas on what is fit punishment for crime, and it's often too lenient imo, but I don't want to live in a society like the one that the thread is based on either.

 

[Spoonman]

Let's go for an eye for an eye. Why not? Why shouldn't the punishment fit the crime. It might be a deterent. I think it would.

In some cases though would the eye for an eye be equitable. A man rapes a women and gets her pregnant. Or gives her an infectious disease. What do you do? Rape him? How do you deal with the pregnancy of disease? You can't impact him that way. Let's say someone kills your three children, but he has none? What do you do then? Or is murder just repaid with death regardless.

The punishment should fit the crime but there is a lot to consider.

True, but it's difficult to have an "eye for an eye" system unless we're living in the wild west. I have no problem with the death penalty IF guilt can be determined with no doubt whatsoever. When you get into crimes such as rape, there's really no option for "an eye for an eye" justice. Then we have the reality we are living in where many of our prisoners are in prison for drug possession, which can't really be remedied with that type of justice either. What about theives? Cut off their hands? This is what you might see in an eye for an eye society, but is not considered humane in the western world. We pretty much have to live within our own ideas on what is fit punishment for crime, and it's often too lenient imo, but I don't want to live in a society like the one that the thread is based on either.

Criminals aren't humane so I really have no problem not dealing humanely with them. Yes it requires a change in mindset but this is what we are up against. The criminals mindset is already changed and we are not changing them back. I've heard this analogy used and I love it. There are bullies out there and they are ready to kick sand in your face. You have two options, fight back or take it. And that is the way of the world. We are not going to be able to force out nice guy ideals on every one. So we either muscle up and push back when pushed or roll over and take it.

I pointed out there are numerous circumstanses where there really isn't a practical eye for eye solution. We'd have to work those out. As far as drugs. I'd legalize them. You want to do drugs, your call. I smoke pot. I even grow a lot of my own. But, and this is a key but. I would make laws for driving under the influence as strict as alcohol. Being legal does not prevent your company from firing your ass if you show up to work high. Same laws apply as alcohol. And, another big one, drug testing mandatory for entitlement checks. Test positive, no check for you.

Another thing we really need to keep in mind, as we become more diverse, we have a society that is more used to these types of punishments. Or world is changing and becoming more like theirs. We do not have an adequate deterent system to the criminal element that is from outside the US.

 

[lizzie]

Criminals aren't humane so I really have no problem not dealing humanely with them. Yes it requires a change in mindset but this is what we are up against. The criminals mindset is already changed and we are not changing them back. I've heard this analogy used and I love it. There are bullies out there and they are ready to kick sand in your face. You have two options, fight back or take it. And that is the way of the world.

Violent criminals aren't humane, but our prisons are full of non-violent criminals, primarily due to drug issues. I don't have a problem with legalization if those who use have to accept personal responsibility for the results of said use. Iow, I don't favor putting them on disability and the taxpayer footing the bill for their rehab. If someone wants to kill themselves with drugs, let them. I have no need to save people from themselves.

Another thing we really need to keep in mind, as we become more diverse, we have a society that is more used to these types of punishments. Or world is changing and becoming more like theirs. We do not have an adequate deterent system to the criminal element that is from outside the US.

Most of our criminal element is a result of our own social policies and creation of the welfare state.