Quotes of the day

posted at 10:05 pm on December 30, 2011 by Allahpundit

“‘Oh, I’d probably have trouble,’ Paul said to a question of supporting Gingrich’s candidacy, adding that he wouldn’t be able to support the nominee in general if the ‘policies of the Republican Party are the same as the Democrat Party.’…

“‘I’m gonna come in, I think, first or second,’ Paul said today in an interview airing this weekend on Bloomberg Television’s ‘Political Capital with Al Hunt.’ ‘If I did come in fifth or sixth, that would be a real shocker.’…

“Romney would be the least objectionable of his party’s potential nominees, Paul said in the interview, yet he wouldn’t commit to supporting him as the 2012 Republican candidate and refused to rule out a third-party run.

“‘I think he probably understands how the market works as a businessman a little bit better than a guy like Gingrich,’ Paul said of Romney.”

***

“Based on discussion with a dozen supporters at candidate events across the state — including a Paul rally of about 500 here Wednesday night – the Paul Posse contains a considerable ‘Ron or I’m Gone’ population.

“Of those people interviewed, three said they would vote for the Republican nominee if it was not Mr. Paul, and two said they were not sure. But seven respondents said they would support only Mr. Paul in the general election – either as a write-in or a third-party candidate (the latter of which Mr. Paul has not ruled out). Ideally, they said, he would be the Republican nominee…

“‘I would not vote for anyone else,’ said Eric Grote, who travelled to Iowa from Turkey, where he lives half the year, to attend Mr. Paul’s rally in Des Moines. He wore a big Tea Party button. ‘All the other candidates, Democrat or Republican, are reading from the same sheet of music,’ he said.”

***

“The central thesis of Paul’s stump speech is that the government’s singular role is to protect our liberties. And part of true liberty, Paul believes, is making personal choices without interference from the federal government. In every speech Paul reaches a moment in which he relays that We don’t have to agree on everything: people should have their own religion, their own intellectual pursuits and the right to live their private lives however they see fit. That last part strikes some as a tacit acceptance of liberal positions on social issues like abortion and gay marriage—and on some level it is. While Paul himself would support state bans for such things, his stay-out-of-people’s-business philosophy is absolute at the federal level. ‘I like that he’s for less governmental involvement in our lives,’ said Erin Nevius, a 24-year-old who classifies herself as independent and attended a Paul town hall on Thursday. ‘For being a Republican, I think he has some pretty liberal ideas.’

“Couple that with Paul’s support for the Occupy movement–its spirit, not its preferred tax policy–and you have a liberal-friendly message. ‘Wealth is being accumulated into smaller and smaller hands,’ he said on Thursday. ‘Right now, big business makes more money paying high-paid lobbyists going to Washington to get a good deal than trying to satisfy you, the customer. And that needs to be reversed.’ Paul’s message focuses on the weak economy, a grievance pretty much everyone can get behind. There is always the possibility that liberal voters will realize how conservative he is on issues like taxation, entitlements or abortion, but Paul’s libertarianism acts as a buffer. And that could make all the difference when voters caucus Tuesday night across Iowa.”

***

“Mr. Paul should be given credit for his efforts to promote these ideas and other libertarian policies, all of which would make America better off. He’d be the first to admit he’s not the most erudite candidate to make the case, but surely part of his appeal is his very genuine persona.

“Which is not to say that Mr. Paul is always in sync with mainstream libertarians. His seeming indifference to attempts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, his support for a constitutional amendment to deny birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens, and his opposition to the Nafta and Cafta free trade agreements in the name of doctrinal purity are at odds with most libertarians…

“Support for dynamic market capitalism (as opposed to crony capitalism), social tolerance, and a healthy skepticism of foreign military adventurism is a combination of views held by a plurality of Americans. It is why the 21st century is likely to be a libertarian century. It is why the focus should be on Ron Paul’s philosophy and his policy proposals in 2012.”

***

“Rep. Ron Paul is most associated with his economic and foreign policy views, but one of the secrets to his success is the appeal he’s making to Iowa’s socially conservative electorate, something that may come as a surprise to those who know him as a gadfly libertarian.

“On table outside a Paul town hall meeting in a public library here, attendees were offered fliers promoting Ron Paul as a ‘pro-life champion’ and somebody who would ‘defend traditional marriage.’ None of the materials mentioned anything about foreign policy, unless you count the linguine recipe in the ‘Ron Paul Family Cook Book.’…

“And one of the advantages of having been dismissed as a crank who couldn’t win the caucuses is that it has allowed Paul to skate under the radar and make it easier to thread the needle between his appeal to libertarians and to social conservatives. Had he been taken seriously as a front-runner earlier in the process, he’d probably be subject to negative ads informing conservatives that Paul does support the right of individual states to allow gay marriage. Instead, the lower profile has allowed him to quietly make his case to social conservatives, and expand his base beyond libertarians.”

***

“But looking at the primary season merely through the lens of winners and losers misses an essential point about Ron Paul, I think. Winning the GOP nomination (and maybe even the presidency!) may be this year’s goal, but the ultimate, oft-stated purpose to Paul’s 35+ years in public life has been to spread the message of freedom, of constitutionally limited government. Even a losing primary season—say, like Jerry Brown’s underdog role against Bill Clinton in 1992—becomes a prime opportunity for salesmanship. Paul, unlike the rest of the non-Romney field, has the money and stamina for such a fight.

“Another objective, as Silver points out, is that Paul ‘could certainly control a substantial enough minority to become a power broker at the Republican National Convention, something that is an explicit goal of his campaign.’ In my sporadic conversations with Paul insiders, the convention/delegates strategy has come up every time. If they can’t prevail in a brokered convention, the Paulities at least hope to get a prime-time speaking slot, a hand in the platform-writing, and more besides…

“So Ron Paul’s in it for the long haul. Republicans gearing up for a post-Iowa purge festival should be asking themselves one question: Do they really want to alienate the enthusiastic supporters of the only GOP candidate who either talks convincingly about cutting government or appeals noticeably to the non-Republican swing voters who tip most modern elections? The answer to that question may determine the future of the Republican Party.”

***

“But there’s a paradox buried inside Paul’s rise in the Republican field, a time bomb ticking away. Call it the curse of the ‘Paulbots.’

“The more Paul rises, the more he needs to temper his rhetoric and fine-tune his message (especially given the kind of baggage he carries). And the more he needs a fine-tuned message, the more he has to control his fractious fans. But people who organize themselves online today are notoriously hard to control…

“But things are about to get a bit crazy. Paul’s late surge and possible win next week in Iowa are going to generate a huge burst of national media attention and plenty of hard-edged questions about his past and views. And the Paulbot base doesn’t handle criticism very well…

“If the Internet hyper-empowers small groups of people, enabling them to punch above their weight, it also hyper-exposes them. In the coming days, as Paul’s star rises, his online base is going to be tested as much as he is.”

***

“In response to these remarks, Wead pointed to the Constitution. ‘A lot of what Ron Paul says and believes is misrepresented. He believes strongly in the Constitution,’ he said. ‘There’s nothing dangerous about the U.S. Constitution. If we decided we needed to react, as a president he would take it to the U.S. Congress. We’d decide; we’d declare war; we’d win it, and then we’d get out.’”


Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Sniping at people over here is a lot less work

annoyinglittletwerp on December 31, 2011 at 12:31 AM

Yeah, good point.

jaime on December 31, 2011 at 12:33 AM

They hate us because our women drive. That’s it. And they hate baseball and apple pie and stuff too. Let’s nuke ‘em.

angryed on December 31, 2011 at 12:31 AM

Oh, and their desire to establish world dominion with a religious-fascist totalitarian state. Which, when fascism reared its ugly head before and we let it grow unabated because of isolationist policies, cost us 60 million dead. And that was before Stalin and Mao had their fun with their own people.

John the Libertarian on December 31, 2011 at 12:34 AM

It’s our women. They hate us because our women drive. That’s it. And they hate baseball and apple pie and stuff too. Let’s nuke ‘em.

angryed on December 31, 2011 at 12:31 AM

“He [that would be Muhammad, the founder of Islam and Islam's "Perfect Man"] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion [that would be Islam, not "Islamism", nor "Radical Islam", nor "Islamofascism", nor "Hijacked Islam", but ISLAM!], against all the rest of mankind.” (John Quincy Adams)

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on December 31, 2011 at 12:35 AM

The only one in the pack who literally gives the election to Obama, whether he wins the R nomination or runs third party, is Ron Paul. Any of the others could and will beat him because of the economy, the unemployment numbers (the real ones), his extremely low approvals in the swing states, and the historically low good-track, bad-track numbers. And, that’s even assuming we’re going to see Democrat voter fraud like never seen before.

TXUS on December 31, 2011 at 12:23 AM

Oh, Paul doesn’t even has to run third party to throw it to election. All he has to do is endorse Gary Johnson and that will be more than enough to tip a few swing states (New Mexico, New Hampshire, Nevada, Colorado, Wisconsin, maybe Florida) and possibly even a few solid red states (Arizona, the Dakotas, Montana). That way he wouldn’t have to ruin the Paul(c) brand for Rand. So you see, the GOP really only has two options: Paul or Obama.

You choose.

letoile du nord on December 31, 2011 at 12:35 AM

‘Then you are a racist and no different than the rest of them.’”

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on December 31, 2011 at 12:31 AM

So, after the second black president told the first black president off, what then?

unclesmrgol on December 31, 2011 at 12:35 AM

angryed on December 31, 2011 at 12:27 AM

Really, the 1960′s? I thought Jefferson had run ins with them when he was president?

Cindy Munford on December 31, 2011 at 12:35 AM

Do you honestly believe that?

steebo77 on December 31, 2011 at 12:31 AM

Jewish settlers were being murdered in what is now is Irael starting in the nineteens. What became the IRA was doing dirty deeds starting around the same time.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 31, 2011 at 12:35 AM

Terrorism started in the 1960s. Why were these savage Muslims quiet in the 40s and 50s? According to you they’ve been at it since the 9th century. Why did they take a 20 year break?

Because they were occupied by the western powers? They didn’t become idependent until the late 50′s, mid 60′s.

What happened in the 60s? Hmmmm. Let’s think really hard about this. Oh yeah. Israel conquered Egypt, Jordan and Syria. What else happened…..hmmmm….I know the US started building bases in Muslim countries.

But that’s just a coincidence.

angryed on December 31, 2011 at 12:27 AM

What happened in the 1960′s is that Islamic nations were now free to take up where they had left off when the west occupied them. Instead of Barbary pirates and Ghazi warriors we had terrorists and Mujahideen. We now have Somali pirates and those lovely fellows the Janjaweed of Sudan.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 12:36 AM

Mohammedan morals consist in prostrate like bowing 5 times a day in the general direction of some black stone in Mecca that is suppose to have fallen down from their moon-god, Allah, and attending mosque regularly at the appointed weekly time, and in breaking the ten commandments all the balance of the week. It comes natural to them to lie and cheat and kill and enslave in the first place, and then they go on and improve on that nature until they arrive at perfection. I never did dislike anyone as much as those Muslims and especially the Arabs, and, when Israel is pushed to war with them again, I hope America and England and France will not find it good breeding nor good judgment to interfere.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on December 31, 2011 at 12:37 AM

angryed on December 30, 2011 at 11:22 PM

Ed, I hear what you are saying but I think you are mistaken. For someone who criticizes people for not knowing their history, I think your views on the political dynamics of the region don’t look back nearly far enough. You have preconceived notions that you use to filter the history you do know in order to arrive at your preconceived conclusions.

For example, I don’t see much discussion on the history of the region going back before WWI to Turkish rule, and the events surrounding WWI and its aftermath. The division of the spoils after WWI was simply untenable. We won the war but lost the peace and set the stage, not only for WWII, but for many of the problems we face in the Middle East today.

The problems created by Islamism have been exacerbated by its rejection of science and rationality, evolving views of human rights, the shrinking of the world by modern communications, advances in air travel and military technology, and the modern dependence on oil for energy. The barbarism of Islam is incompatible with modern society, and as the world shrinks the points of contact increase and the conflicts increase. Yes, of course, the Islamists seize on support for Israel, and Western “interference” as the supposed basis for their ire, but the fact is they would find other reasons for their hatred and contempt if they didn’t have these to focus on. Because hatred and contempt for infidels is essential to Islam, it is what holds the Ummah together, it is the mechanism by which the clerics maintain their power and control. But if these barbarians weren’t sitting on vital energy reserves, they wouldn’t have any strategic leverage or the money to spread their evil ideology.

I’m not saying we haven’t made blunders or that we have always done the right thing, because obviously we haven’t. But the notion that if we had simply come home after WWII and hunkered down the world would be a much better place now is simply nonsensical. If for no other reasons, the threats posed by the Soviet Union and Red China demanded our engagement around the globe. Or perhaps you think things would have turned out better if we had simply let those two evil empires take over the rest of the planet.

novaculus on December 31, 2011 at 12:37 AM

John the Libertarian on December 31, 2011 at 12:34 AM

Very good point..:)

Dire Straits on December 31, 2011 at 12:37 AM

It’s our women. They hate us because our women drive. That’s it. And they hate baseball and apple pie and stuff too. Let’s nuke ‘em.

angryed on December 31, 2011 at 12:31 AM

No, angry — they actually like us a lot and they need us so that they may properly atone for their individual sins:

Throwing of Non-Believers in Hell-Fire for Believers As Divine Grace and Mercy

Abu Musa’ reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: When it will be the Day of Resurrection Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jew or a Christian and say: That is your rescue from Hell-Fire.

Abu Burda reported on the authority of his father that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: No Muslim would die but Allah would admit in his stead a Jew or a Christian in Hell-Fire. ‘Umar b. Abd al-’Aziz took an oath: By One besides Whom there is no god but He, thrice that his father had narrated that to him from Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him).

Abu Burda reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: There would come people amongst the Muslims on the Day of Resurrection with as heavy sins as a mountain, and Allah would forgive them and He would place in their stead the Jews and the Christians. (As far as I think), Abu Raub said: I do not know as to who is in doubt. Abu Burda said: I narrated it to ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-’Aziz, whereupon he said: Was it your father who narrated it to you from Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him)? I said: Yes.

unclesmrgol on December 31, 2011 at 12:38 AM

In fact, I’d guess that at least some Iranians would prefer the Shah over Khomeini, though that’s just a hunch on my part.

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 12:22 AM

The women, particularly. They weren’t beaten up on the streets by Modesty Police under the Shah.

John the Libertarian on December 31, 2011 at 12:39 AM

I hope Paul runs third party. As another hotair commenter said recently, he would pull more votes from the donkey party (with his legalize drugs meme) than he would pull from the GOP. Guaranteed GOP win.

The only reason Paul is back in the GOP is its idiotic big tent policy. Literally anybody can get in. The party platform has become a set of optional guidelines. When Paul quit the GOP, they should have nailed the door shut and burned his membership card.

platypus on December 31, 2011 at 12:39 AM

Oh, and their desire to establish world dominion with a religious-fascist totalitarian state. Which, when fascism reared its ugly head before and we let it grow unabated because of isolationist policies, cost us 60 million dead. And that was before Stalin and Mao had their fun with their own people.

John the Libertarian on December 31, 2011 at 12:34 AM

Fascism never would have gained any traction in the 30′s if we had followed the advice of pretty much every 19th century President, stayed clear of European affairs, and not gone into WWI. Wilsonian progressivism, not isolationism, led to WWII. If we had stayed out of the first world war, which we had no good reason to enter, the Europeans would have settled things on their own and Germany wouldn’t have had to face the punitive charges that tore down their post war economy and allowed National Socialism to gain traction.

Nelsen on December 31, 2011 at 12:40 AM

Jewish settlers were being murdered in what is now is Israel starting in the nineteens.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 31, 2011 at 12:35 AM

They weren’t born to walk on water
They weren’t born to sack and slaughter
But on their soul, they weren’t born
To stoop and knuckle under
They can again learn to steal some thunder
They can again learn to work some wonder
And when the gauntlet’s down,
It’s time to rise and climb the sky
And soon the moon will smoulder
And the winds will drive
Yes, Israel grows older but it’s soul remains alive
All those tremulous stars still glitter
They will survive
Let their hearts grow colder and as bitter as a falcon in the dive

There was a dream, a dying ember
There was a dream, they may not yet remember
But they will resurrect that dream
Though rivers stream and hills grow steeper
For in the Middle East where life gets cheaper
Oh, here in this Hell the blood runs deeper
And when the final duel is near
They will lift their spear and fly
Piercing into the sky and higher
And the strong will thrive
Yes, the weak will cower while the fittest will survive
If they wait for the darkest hour
Till they spring alive
Then with claws of Sampson’s fire, they will devour the Mohammedans like a falcon in the dive!

PercyB on December 31, 2011 at 12:41 AM

I had to look that up. Obviously I don’t know enough about our Jewish overlords. /

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 12:27 AM

I knew that because that’s what we use for our communion wine. At a former congregation, we used Mogen David. Mostly because both of those wines are at the just barely acceptable level of low-priced red wines.

AZfederalist on December 31, 2011 at 12:42 AM

There’s this great book that will tell you everything you need to know about them. I think it’s called The Protocols of the Elders of something or other…

steebo77 on December 31, 2011 at 12:30 AM

Yeah, they are selling that in Egypt too. I guess after watching an episode of The Jew Eating Rabbit you can start on the Protocols.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 12:42 AM

What happened in the 60s? Hmmmm. Let’s think really hard about this. Oh yeah. Israel conquered Egypt, Jordan and Syria. What else happened…..hmmmm….I know the US started building bases in Muslim countries.

But that’s just a coincidence.

angryed on December 31, 2011 at 12:27 AM

The Arabs ganged up on the Jews and got their a$$es handed to them. Like all bullies, the Arabs turned to cowradly attacks. Big brother, USA, came to the Jews aid and no one else would.

If you’re a Paulbot, you don’t care if the Jews are destroyed, I suppose. There is no reason for the Islamic radicals to do what they do except it keeps the Mullahs in power. They don’t care about Palestinians except to be used as pawns.

Vince on December 31, 2011 at 12:43 AM

How come no one ever talks about Paul being against capital punishment?

itsnotaboutme on December 30, 2011 at 10:09 PM

So he’s not only a near isolationist but a moral lunatic as well?

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 12:45 AM

Terrorism started in the 1960s. Why were these savage Muslims quiet in the 40s and 50s? According to you they’ve been at it since the 9th century. Why did they take a 20 year break?

angryed on December 31, 2011 at 12:27 AM

Seriously? You really believe that? Ever heard of the “Old Man of the Mountain”. Assassins’ Guild ring any bells? The islamists have been engaging in terror for centuries.

Why were they quiet in the 40′s and 50′s? Aside from their attacks on Israel? How about because empire had not quite worn off yet and there was sufficient force of arms available to reign them in. Or maybe they just hadn’t re-organized sufficiently to re-engage the jihad.

AZfederalist on December 31, 2011 at 12:46 AM

Fascism never would have gained any traction in the 30′s if we had followed the advice of pretty much every 19th century President, stayed clear of European affairs, and not gone into WWI. Wilsonian progressivism, not isolationism, led to WWII.

Nelsen on December 31, 2011 at 12:40 AM

I absolutely agree that Wilsonian progressive policies and the post-WWI fiscal fiasco in Germany sowed the seeds of WWII — in Europe. But we also had a war in the Pacific. And our isolationism let these seeds grow to disastrous levels, and our unpreparedness to go to war at the time cost far too many lives and treasure.

John the Libertarian on December 31, 2011 at 12:46 AM

“He [that would be Muhammad, the founder of Islam and Islam's "Perfect Man"] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion [that would be Islam, not "Islamism", nor "Radical Islam", nor "Islamofascism", nor "Hijacked Islam", but ISLAM!], against all the rest of mankind.” (John Quincy Adams)

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on December 31, 2011 at 12:35 AM

Nah.

Mohammed was just pissed the CIA used their mind control holographic waves (which would be refined to make it appear as if hijacked airplanes were flown into buildings centuries later) to make him sexually attracted towards children.

catmman on December 31, 2011 at 12:46 AM

letoile du nord on December 31, 2011 at 12:35 AM

Nice try, but endorsements mean nothing in wave elections, which this will be. But, if Paul should win the R nom or go 3P, say goodbye to the republic and your freedoms and … hello to hell.

TXUS on December 31, 2011 at 12:50 AM

If we had stayed out of the first world war, which we had no good reason to enter, the Europeans would have settled things on their own and Germany wouldn’t have had to face the punitive charges that tore down their post war economy and allowed National Socialism to gain traction.

Nelsen on December 31, 2011 at 12:40 AM

So Germany would have won?

unclesmrgol on December 31, 2011 at 12:50 AM

TXUS on December 31, 2011 at 12:23 AM

The facts don’t back you up on that claim.

gyrmnix on December 31, 2011 at 12:51 AM

Allen West and Geert Wilders

RasThavas on December 31, 2011 at 12:51 AM

If we had stayed out of the first world war, which we had no good reason to enter, the Europeans would have settled things on their own and Germany wouldn’t have had to face the punitive charges that tore down their post war economy and allowed National Socialism to gain traction.

Nelsen on December 31, 2011 at 12:40 AM

Right. After all, why should we care if Germany was attempting to form an alliance with Mexico to attack us from the south. And that unrestricted submarine warfare, sinking passenger ships like the Lusitania, not a problem.

We didn’t have any choice but to enter WWI. We screwed up the aftermath big time. But we certainly were not alone in that bungled process.

novaculus on December 31, 2011 at 12:51 AM

In fact, I’d guess that at least some Iranians would prefer the Shah over Khomeini, though that’s just a hunch on my part.

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 12:22 AM

The women, particularly. They weren’t beaten up on the streets by Modesty Police under the Shah.

John the Libertarian on December 31, 2011 at 12:39 AM

Indeed.

However, I do have to agree with the Paul supporters when they cite our role in reinstalling the Shah as one of the major blunders of our interventionist foreign policy. That decision sparked a series of events that ultimately led to Khomeini taking over, and we’re all seeing now just how poorly that turned out for everyone involved, including the Iranians themselves.

I wouldn’t characterize myself as a Paul supporter, but I do think it’s unfair sometimes when people contend that his position on foreign policy is crazy or anti-American. If anything, I think it’s our patriotic duty to point out what we believe to be the mistakes of our government’s foreign policies of the past in an effort to avoid making them again. The question is whether or not those “mistakes” do in fact qualify as actual mistakes. That’s a legitimate question that reasonable people should be free to debate. And in the case of the Shah, I feel Paul has a legitimate point.

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 12:52 AM

So he’s not only a near isolationist but a moral lunatic as well?

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 12:45 AM

Hey! Us moral lunatics who are against capital punishment resent that!

unclesmrgol on December 31, 2011 at 12:52 AM

However, I do have to agree with the Paul supporters when they cite our role in reinstalling the Shah as one of the major blunders of our interventionist foreign policy. That decision sparked a series of events that ultimately led to Khomeini taking over, and we’re all seeing now just how poorly that turned out for everyone involved, including the Iranians themselves.

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 12:52 AM

And yet… we see the same dynamic in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, Turkey, Pakistan, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and soon Syria.

Maybe it didn’t really have much to do with the Shah but with Islam and its slow return to its traditional roots?

Maybe we aren’t as important to what is going on as our ego’s would like to believe?

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 12:56 AM

And in the case of the Shah, I feel Paul has a legitimate point.

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 12:52 AM

But we also must not let our current set of circumstances revise the history at the time. Our number one enemy was communism and our biggest adversary was the USSR, and we had a huge array of massive satellite dishes along the northern Iranian border pointed at Moscow.

Through this prism, one could argue our interventionism in Afghanistan and our problems in the broader Middle East is in part the long-term consequences of the Cold War. Which we won, by the way, even though we’re still paying the price.

John the Libertarian on December 31, 2011 at 12:57 AM

Opposing capital punishment is moral lunacy? I beg to differ.

If you agree that the killing of an innocent person is an injustice, then opposition to capital punishment is easily understood. We know without a doubt that innocent people have been executed by our justice system. Therefore, we know for a fact that our justice system has been used to commit unjust acts against innocent people, albeit unintentionally. That is troubling to some people. Life imprisonment, however, would allow us to correct the injustice that occurs when an innocent person is sent to prison. There are no second chances to get it right when someone is executed.

Of course, there are other reasons to oppose capital punishment, but the unintentional execution of innocents is, I think, the most obvious one.

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 12:59 AM

What happened in the 1960′s is that Islamic nations were now free to take up where they had left off when the west occupied them. Instead of Barbary pirates and Ghazi warriors we had terrorists and Mujahideen. We now have Somali pirates and those lovely fellows the Janjaweed of Sudan.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 12:36 AM

The truth of the matter is that there has been a lot terrorism perpetrated by Muslims against Muslims, well before the slaughter of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics.

For instance, there were numerous attacks by Arabs against Ottoman rule prior to 1923 (this had a lot to do with the emergence of the Muslim Brotherhood) and by Sunnis against Shiites and their holy sites, particularly in the 19th and 20th centuries. Also, don’t forget the 1979 seizure of Mecca’s Grand Mosque by a group proclaiming the supposed coming of the Mahdi.

However, perhaps more than any other events, the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and the Islamic Revolution in Iran marked the beginning of the modern era of Islamic terrorism. Prior to these events, the overwhelming majority of attacks against Israel had been carried out directly by state actors in the form of military engagement, rather than by terrorist groups.

steebo77 on December 31, 2011 at 1:00 AM

Hey! Us moral lunatics who are against capital punishment resent that!

unclesmrgol on December 31, 2011 at 12:52 AM

With all due respect, you may be brilliant and thoughtful in other endeavors but regarding the position of capital punishment; to be against it is one of moral idiocy.

And for Ron Paul, what he said about the Nuremburg Trials now juxtaposed with this, he has shown his lunacy…yet again.

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 1:01 AM

PercyB on December 31, 2011 at 12:41 AM

Everything you write here is interesting. I assume you write it, anyway. Very nice.

jaime on December 31, 2011 at 1:01 AM

Of course, there are other reasons to oppose capital punishment, but the unintentional execution of innocents is, I think, the most obvious one.

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 12:59 AM

But you need that ultimate punishment as leverage to find out where the bodies are buried.

John the Libertarian on December 31, 2011 at 1:01 AM

Yeah, they are selling that in Egypt too. I guess after watching an episode of The Jew Eating Rabbit you can start on the Protocols.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 12:42 AM

I’m still trying to work my way through a 20-year backlog of Ron Paul investment and survival newsletters first.

steebo77 on December 31, 2011 at 1:03 AM

If you agree that the killing of an innocent person is an injustice, then opposition to capital punishment is easily understood.

I see the quite opposite. It is deeply difficult to understand.

Of course, there are other reasons to oppose capital punishment, but the unintentional execution of innocents is, I think, the most obvious one.

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 12:59 AM

How do you feel about the outcome of the Nuremburg Trials?

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 1:04 AM

The truth of the matter is that there has been a lot terrorism perpetrated by Muslims against Muslims, well before the slaughter of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics.

steebo77 on December 31, 2011 at 1:00 AM

Terrorism and small scale raiding has been a Muslim tradition from the very beginning. The Byzantines dealt with it as did the Persians and it continued into the medieval period. That is why I do not believe this war will ever end.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 1:05 AM

The facts don’t back you up on that claim.

gyrmnix on December 31, 2011 at 12:51 AM

That’s not facts, that polling data. You don’t know the internals of those polls, who was polled, nor the questions. At this time in the election process, the majority of polling organizations, who tend to lean left coincidentally, are trying to shape, not measure opinion. It’s been that way for several decades now.

Look for Obama’s approval ratings to go up in polls over the coming months, look for the unemployment number to come down as more people “leave the workforce”, and look for Obama’s election chances in these polls to start a long, slow rise. That will hold until about a week or so before the election when the polling organizations start reflecting the real numbers in order to maintain their credibility.

AZfederalist on December 31, 2011 at 1:05 AM

If Romney would agree that he’d only go to war with a declaration of war from the Congress and will try to CUT at least 500 billion in year one..

I’d vote for him. Seriously.

If HE’D ACTUALLY CUT SPENDING (not just future increases) and ONLY GO TO WAR WITH A DECLARATION OF WAR I’m all in. But as of now his plan is a bad idea.

Romney’s plan blows. Paul’s is much better. :)

fatlibertarianinokc on December 31, 2011 at 1:07 AM

I’m still trying to work my way through a 20-year backlog of Ron Paul investment and survival newsletters first.

steebo77 on December 31, 2011 at 1:03 AM

Surely we can make peace with these people? /

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 1:07 AM

I knew that because that’s what we use for our communion wine. At a former congregation, we used Mogen David. Mostly because both of those wines are at the just barely acceptable level of low-priced red wines.

AZfederalist on December 31, 2011 at 12:42 AM

My grandma would buy Mogen David by the jug (actually, as a child of the Depression, she purchased everything in bulk, so it was more like by the dozen of jugs). When she started “getting up there,” she began to insist that the wine was “pop,” and would offer it to all of us grandchildren along with the usual cookies and candy.

steebo77 on December 31, 2011 at 1:08 AM

Surely we can make peace with these people? /

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 1:07 AM

Is that the Ramadan Bunny?

steebo77 on December 31, 2011 at 1:08 AM

And yet… we see the same dynamic in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, Turkey, Pakistan, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and soon Syria.

Maybe it didn’t really have much to do with the Shah but with Islam and its slow return to its traditional roots?

Maybe we aren’t as important to what is going on as our ego’s would like to believe?

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 12:56 AM

And we have maintained a strong alliance with the Saudi regime in spite of its oppressive ways. We condemn leaders like Khomeini for his oppression of women but look the other way when the Saudis do it. Just another reason why energy independence should be a bigger issue than it is, I think.

But anyways, we have interjected ourselves into the affairs of many other nations, including several you just listed. I think we play a much bigger role than you’re suggesting, though I would agree that many Paul supporters have a tendency to overstate the degree to which our actions have influenced the development of the Middle East.

I also won’t deny that religion plays a part. However, while I think Paul overstates things sometimes, I also believe that his critics tend to overstate the influence of religion in all of this. Absent Islam, I still believe the situation in the ME wouldn’t be that much better than it is right now. Anger and resentment towards the West for its interference in the affairs of Arab nations would still exist even if Islam didn’t. Radical Islam provides the banner that terrorists need to rally others to their cause and to justify the murdering of innocent people, but I don’t believe it is the sole source of anti-western sentiments in the region. That is where our foreign policy does come into play, IMHO.

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 1:11 AM

Terrorism and small scale raiding has been a Muslim tradition from the very beginning. The Byzantines dealt with it as did the Persians and it continued into the medieval period. That is why I do not believe this war will ever end.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 1:05 AM

You would think the Khaybar Massacre (629) or the Granada Massacre (1066) would at least ring a bell with some of the doubters. If not either of those, maybe Hebron and Safed in 1929, or Thrace in 1934, or Tiberias in 1938, or Cairo and Tripoli in 1945, or Aden, Aleppo, Jerusalem, and Manama in 1947, or Oujda, Jerada, and Tripoli (again) in 1948, or…well, you get the picture…

steebo77 on December 31, 2011 at 1:14 AM

Quote of the day with that picture should actually be,

“Fire can’t melt steel”.

Omega_Rage on December 31, 2011 at 1:15 AM

Of course, there are other reasons to oppose capital punishment, but the unintentional execution of innocents is, I think, the most obvious one.

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 12:59 AM

But you need that ultimate punishment as leverage to find out where the bodies are buried.

John the Libertarian on December 31, 2011 at 1:01 AM

Life imprisonment is pretty scary as it is. Some would argue that it’s even scarier than death, though that obviously depends on your perspective.

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 1:15 AM

And we have maintained a strong alliance with the Saudi regime in spite of its oppressive ways. We condemn leaders like Khomeini for his oppression of women but look the other way when the Saudis do it. Just another reason why energy independence should be a bigger issue than it is, I think.

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 1:11 AM

And, while Iran is a huge source of financing for terrorism, let’s not forget that the Saudi government “indirectly” funds jihad through its support of the madrasahs, Muslim “charities,” etc., etc., etc.

steebo77 on December 31, 2011 at 1:18 AM

Anger and resentment towards the West for its interference in the affairs of Arab nations would still exist even if Islam didn’t.

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 1:11 AM

But now you’re giving short shrift to the power of ideas over the hearts of men, and ignoring the fact that Islamic wars of expansionism began in the 7th century A.D. and have continued unabated ever since, and that the Crusades were a defensive reaction to Muslim encroachment throughout Northern Africa and into Spain. Our interventionism is a chess game to try and diffuse insurmountable clashes, and guess what? Sometimes we make wrong moves.

John the Libertarian on December 31, 2011 at 1:18 AM

Quote of the day with that picture should actually be,

“Fire can’t melt steel”.

Omega_Rage on December 31, 2011 at 1:15 AM

Rosie O’Donnell?

steebo77 on December 31, 2011 at 1:19 AM

I also won’t deny that religion plays a part. However, while I think Paul overstates things sometimes, I also believe that his critics tend to overstate the influence of religion in all of this. Absent Islam, I still believe the situation in the ME wouldn’t be that much better than it is right now.

You are making the typical western mistake of assuming that they are less advanced versions of ourselves. Religion isn’t some quaint Sunday tradition like it is too often in the west. They believe in a sense that is probably difficult for you to understand. It isn’t just some ‘yeah, yeah, they have a religion as well‘.

There was a time in the west when hundreds of thousands of men assembled and marched across the globe when the Pope asked them to. That is the sense in which they believe and modern westerners have difficulty in dealing with that looming aspect of this religious war.

And this is a religious war.

That is where our foreign policy does come into play, IMHO.

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 1:11 AM

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t act on the world scene. Just because someone might be upset is no reason to run away and hide. This isn’t a popularity contest.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 1:20 AM

looks like Newt has got caught again with the Climate Change stuff

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57350372-503544/gingrich-kills-chapter-on-climate-change-in-upcoming-book/

DES MOINES — Newt Gingrich says he has killed a chapter on climate change in a post-election book of essays about the environment. But the intended author of the chapter, who supports the scientific consensus that humans contribute to climate change, says that’s news to her.

and here’s an interview with her…AGW must be stopped!

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/how_to_find_common_ground_in_the_bitter_climate_debate/2438/

I feel sorry for out pols. There are many complex issues and the left has monopolized and propagandized so well over the last 50 years that you have to spend hours separating truth from lie.

And Newt seems not to have the time to do his own research…via the internet, maybe with some help of an honest person

r keller on December 31, 2011 at 1:20 AM

Everything you write here is interesting. I assume you write it, anyway. Very nice.

jaime on December 31, 2011 at 1:01 AM

I am but a character from one of Baroness Orczy’s novels who somehow took a wrong turn somewhere and ended up at the establishment known as HotGas.

PercyB on December 31, 2011 at 1:21 AM

Some would argue that it’s even scarier than death, though that obviously depends on your perspective.

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 1:15 AM

To you and me, because we’re rational human beings, occasionally. But a lot of these killers don’t see the light until they’re strapped down and awaiting injection. You might very much enjoy a book called Guilty By Reason of Insanity. A psychotherapist teamed up with a neurologist to interview and examine dozens of death-row inmates to determine the cause of their pathology. The author is against capital punishment for reasons of research, but the tone delves both ways, for and against.

John the Libertarian on December 31, 2011 at 1:26 AM

If you agree that the killing of an innocent person is an injustice, then opposition to capital punishment is easily understood.

I see the quite opposite. It is deeply difficult to understand.

Of course, there are other reasons to oppose capital punishment, but the unintentional execution of innocents is, I think, the most obvious one.

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 12:59 AM

How do you feel about the outcome of the Nuremburg Trials?

1. Just so I understand you correctly, are you saying that the accidental execution of innocent people is not an injustice?

2. How do I feel about Nuremberg? In cases of crimes against humanity – i.e., genocide and slavery – I don’t oppose capital punishment so long as the evidence is deemed indisputable and the accused are afforded the opportunity to give their side of the story. My opposition to capital punishment has its limits.

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 1:26 AM

And we have maintained a strong alliance with the Saudi regime in spite of its oppressive ways. We condemn leaders like Khomeini for his oppression of women but look the other way when the Saudis do it. Just another reason why energy independence should be a bigger issue than it is, I think.

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 1:11 AM

While this sounds cynical, the fact is that it benefits our national interest to have this alliance with Saudi Arabia. As mentioned before, it is a sad fact that the islamic influence in that area of the world precludes the flourishing of individual freedom and democracy. That is going to have to come from within that society on its own. If we were to push to rid them of their current tyranny, right now they would just replace it with a new one. The culture does not value individual freedom nor free will. The fact that it does not is also demonstrated by the poor living conditions, lack of industrious effort (except in the cause of mayhem), and stunted cultural achievements.

As I stated before, until that worldview is relegated to the same status as that of the Thuggee cult instead of touted as a major world belief system, societies enveloped by that worldview will remain third world countries, enslaved by tyranny and threats to the civilized world.

AZfederalist on December 31, 2011 at 1:28 AM

Ah, I messed up the quote on my last post.

That was a response to anuts, just to clarify.

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 1:30 AM

1. Just so I understand you correctly, are you saying that the accidental execution of innocent people is not an injustice?

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 1:26 AM

What about the innocents who die because a criminal escapes, kills a guard, or as happens all too often, is released to kill? They number far more than those who are wrongfully executed so where do they enter the equation?

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 1:30 AM

(with his legalize drugs meme)
platypus on December 31, 2011 at 12:39 AM

is this a liberal or conservative issue or both?

svs22422 on December 31, 2011 at 1:32 AM

PercyB on December 31, 2011 at 1:21 AM

But you have been here long before it became HotGas.

Cindy Munford on December 31, 2011 at 1:34 AM

As I stated before, until that worldview is relegated to the same status as that of the Thuggee cult instead of touted as a major world belief system, societies enveloped by that worldview will remain third world countries, enslaved by tyranny and threats to the civilized world.

AZfederalist on December 31, 2011 at 1:28 AM

Just playing devils advocate here, but what makes you so confident that we will win, and they will lose? Given the tremendous power of the west and the relative weakness of the Arab world they are certainly giving us a run for our money. As they increase in population both in their own nations and increasingly in the west that power differential will decrease. Why do you assume that it is them rather than us who will end up on the trash heap of history because they have a long list of empires that they have buried.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 1:34 AM

1. Just so I understand you correctly, are you saying that the accidental execution of innocent people is not an injustice?

No. You misunderstood. I’m speaking in principles at the moment.

2. How do I feel about Nuremberg? In cases of crimes against humanity – i.e., genocide and slavery – I don’t oppose capital punishment so long as the evidence is deemed indisputable and the accused are afforded the opportunity to give their side of the story. My opposition to capital punishment has its limits.

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 1:26 AM

Do you not realize that admission devalues human life? Well, the position against capital punishment devalues it as a whole but it is illustrated here perfectly. Since you don’t actually hold the position of being against capital punishment on principle, what is the threshhold? Or, what number of innocents slaughtered would be “okay” for capital punishment to be applied?

My number is 1. Let that represent x.
X plus _?_ for your number

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 1:36 AM

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 1:15 AM

A dead killer will never kill again.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 31, 2011 at 1:38 AM

Just playing devils advocate here, but what makes you so confident that we will win, and they will lose? …
sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 1:34 AM

A) Because I’m a hopeless optimist
B) Because at it’s heart and core, Americans don’t want to lose at anything

… and finally, because I pray that there are at least 10 righteous in our civilization that the Lord will choose to protect. Not being at all flip with this comment by the way.

There are lots of opportunities for us to screw up and hand them a win at which point civilization will decline to the same level as those countries in the middle east because that society is incapable of innovation or advancement, but merely utilizes and exploits advanced tools developed elsewhere to wage their jihad. I truly pray we don’t let that happen. Remember how bad things must have looked before the Battle of Tours to those in the western world at that time in history

AZfederalist on December 31, 2011 at 1:42 AM

A dead killer will never kill again.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 31, 2011 at 1:38 AM

Neither will one locked up for the rest of his life.

2. How do I feel about Nuremberg? In cases of crimes against humanity – i.e., genocide and slavery – I don’t oppose capital punishment so long as the evidence is deemed indisputable and the accused are afforded the opportunity to give their side of the story. My opposition to capital punishment has its limits.

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 1:26 AM

Nuremberg was a kangaroo court. Luckily for us, just about everyone involved was actually guilty, so no need to shed any tears for the poor Nazis who were executed after a sham trial.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 1:44 AM

AZfederalist on December 31, 2011 at 1:42 AM

… and with that, I’m out for the night.

AZfederalist on December 31, 2011 at 1:47 AM

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 1:44 AM

You murder someone-you forfeit your right to 3 hots and a cot.
The social contract that you broke has no further obligation to you.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 31, 2011 at 1:47 AM

But now you’re giving short shrift to the power of ideas over the hearts of men, and ignoring the fact that Islamic wars of expansionism began in the 7th century A.D. and have continued unabated ever since, and that the Crusades were a defensive reaction to Muslim encroachment throughout Northern Africa and into Spain. Our interventionism is a chess game to try and diffuse insurmountable clashes, and guess what? Sometimes we make wrong moves.

John the Libertarian on December 31, 2011 at 1:18 AM

Two points to make here…

1. I don’t dispute the dangerous and often violent nature of religious fundamentalism. I’m saying that if some of those people didn’t already hate us for some of the morally questionable actions of our government – actions that had very real consequences for people living there – we would have fewer Muslim terrorists to deal with because radical Islam wouldn’t be as popular as it is.

2. I’m not saying we should disengage from the world. I don’t consider myself a full-blown non-interventionist. I do believe, however, that we should respect the sovereignty of other nations in the same way that we expect them to respect our own independence. We need to acknowledge that we cannot control the evolution of entire societies, nor should we try. We also need to be more mindful of the moral implications of our actions. Providing support to dictators who oppress their own people is, at best, morally questionable, IMO. At worst, it is terribly immoral. If, however, another nation takes up an aggressive posture towards us and either attacks us or threatens to attack us, then intervention is certainly warranted. I also believe intervening to help another nation after a disaster is a legitimate action so long as our help is being requested.

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 1:48 AM

A) Because I’m a hopeless optimist

I on the other hand tend in the other direction.

B) Because at it’s heart and core, Americans don’t want to lose at anything

52%

I do wonder of the validity of your statement these days. I know it isn’t true in Europe anymore and that same loss of faith seems to be gaining ground here.

… and finally, because I pray that there are at least 10 righteous in our civilization that the Lord will choose to protect. Not being at all flip with this comment by the way.

This is where I as a non-believer can only stare at you blankly with bewildered eyes. Truthfully I also have a certain envy that you have this *something* and I do not.

Remember how bad things must have looked before the Battle of Tours to those in the western world at that time in history

AZfederalist on December 31, 2011 at 1:42 AM

This is a good point. I just wish that even 20% of people had some idea of what was happening and the need to deal with it. Maybe we need another tragic event to finally snap people into focus?

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 1:49 AM

A dead killer will never kill again.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 31, 2011 at 1:38 AM

Neither will one locked up for the rest of his life.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 1:44 AM

And in that scenario, society has just told itself it is more important to keep that killer alive than the life he took. That is the message.

Bravo society.

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 1:49 AM

PercyB on December 31, 2011 at 1:21 AM

Ah, B for Blakeney. Hadn’t made the connection.

novaculus on December 31, 2011 at 1:49 AM

AZfederalist on December 31, 2011 at 1:05 AM

And polls are the data we have to work with. I will point out that Paul supporters are accused of being conspiracy loons…

And it’s not to say that the polls are infallible, either. McCain was polled against Obama twice in Dec ’07. One was 44-40 McCain and the other was 43-47 Obama. Although, Obama pretty much dominated the entire way.

But, these are scientific polls and they’re all the data we have to work with. Try to back up claims with something substantial.

gyrmnix on December 31, 2011 at 1:50 AM

You murder someone-you forfeit your right to 3 hots and a cot.
The social contract that you broke has no further obligation to you.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 31, 2011 at 1:47 AM

I don’t remember signing this social contract after they snipped the cord. Never understood why people consider just living, even if it’s in squalor, to be some sort of reward.

If you want to talk about removing all creature comforts from their life, that’s fine with me. No TV, no magazines, no books, no stationary for writing letters/poetry/memoirs, 23 and a half hours every day in solitary, two showers a week, etc.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 1:51 AM

1. Just so I understand you correctly, are you saying that the accidental execution of innocent people is not an injustice?

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 1:26 AM

It would be an injustice. But now that we have DNA as evidence, we can use that to convict the right person.

I just read a news article about a man who was arrested for raping a one month old baby to death.

If that monster doesn’t deserve the death penalty, then no one does.

Crucifixion would be too good for him.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 1:52 AM

And in that scenario, society has just told itself it is more important to keep that killer alive than the life he took. That is the message.

Bravo society.

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 1:49 AM

Only if you completely go out of your way to misinterpret the message, sure.

Do we have to kill a triple-murderer three times just to even the scales?

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 1:53 AM

If you want to talk about removing all creature comforts from their life, that’s fine with me. No TV, no magazines, no books, no stationary for writing letters/poetry/memoirs, 23 and a half hours every day in solitary, two showers a week, etc.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 1:51 AM

In a word, the idea is justice. It’s not necessary to speak on which kind of ‘punishment’ may lend more suffering or have less comfort.

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 1:55 AM

1. Just so I understand you correctly, are you saying that the accidental execution of innocent people is not an injustice?

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 1:26 AM

What about the innocents who die because a criminal escapes, kills a guard, or as happens all too often, is released to kill? They number far more than those who are wrongfully executed so where do they enter the equation?

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 1:30 AM

That’s a problem with the system, not with a lack of capital punishment. Parole boards that are too soft on convicted murderers are a different issue, as is the issue of prisons that fail to maintain a proper level of security.

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 1:55 AM

I don’t remember signing this social contract after they snipped the cord. Never understood why people consider just living, even if it’s in squalor, to be some sort of reward.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 1:51 AM

You don’t sign it, you live it. They expect that you will not betray your nation and most people never sign that pact either. You don’t sign an oath not to rape someone either but if you do, they punish you for doing so.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 1:56 AM

I just read a news article about a man who was arrested for raping a one month old baby to death.

If that monster doesn’t deserve the death penalty, then no one does.

Crucifixion would be too good for him.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 1:52 AM

But we don’t torture people to death. IIRC, 48 states only allow lethal injection, and even though hanging is allowed in two states, the last hanging was in 1996.

If it’s about pure, unrestrained, cosmic justice, shouldn’t this guy be raped to death?

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 1:57 AM

And in that scenario, society has just told itself it is more important to keep that killer alive than the life he took. That is the message.

Bravo society.

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 1:49 AM

You steal one’s rights, you are deprived of yours. Simple and sweet. The only problem is that the state is corrupt and horribly inefficient at doling out punishment so it’s a double edged sword. With that said, as a society we shouldn’t have any problem eliminating violent sociopaths who cannot feel empathy.

Pitchforker on December 31, 2011 at 1:58 AM

Do we have to kill a triple-murderer three times just to even the scales?

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 1:53 AM

Of course not, as that is not humanly possible.

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 1:58 AM

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 1:49 AM

It costs more to kill the murderer than it does to keep him alive. I’d rather save the money and put it to good use, rather than waste it on executing somebody when the same thing can be accomplished with life without parole.

gyrmnix on December 31, 2011 at 1:59 AM

If it’s about pure, unrestrained, cosmic justice, shouldn’t this guy be raped to death?

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 1:57 AM

Of course the life of that baby meant nothing to you. It’s all academic.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 2:00 AM

That’s a problem with the system, not with a lack of capital punishment. Parole boards that are too soft on convicted murderers are a different issue, as is the issue of prisons that fail to maintain a proper level of security.

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 1:55 AM

Isn’t it more a problem with overly sensitive consciences?

We are dealing with the real world and in that world there is a price to be paid if you act or if you refuse to act. If we keep villains alive they will find a way to be villainous. That is the price to be paid for that particular mercy and it is paid by the innocent.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 2:01 AM

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 1:51 AM

Here’s an interesting quote I read about the social contract:

People who believe in both ‘date rape’ and the ‘social contract’ might try some premise-checking. ‘No’ really DOES mean ‘No.’ Always.

gyrmnix on December 31, 2011 at 2:01 AM

It costs more to kill the murderer than it does to keep him alive. I’d rather save the money and put it to good use, rather than waste it on executing somebody when the same thing can be accomplished with life without parole.

gyrmnix on December 31, 2011 at 1:59 AM

You sound like a politician.

It’s not about money. It’s about justice.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 2:02 AM

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 1:51 AM
In Illinois there are 3 vermin that killed a pregnant woman and cut her baby out of her so one of the perps could try to pass the mixed-baby(momma was white.) as her own. They left the other little mixed-child alone with his momma’s body and killed his white half siblings(age 7 and 10). It was a racial crime as well as a murder. The then baby and his surviving sibling are being raised by her dad.
All 3 were given the death penalty-then Lyin’ George Ryan commuted all DP sentences to life right before he left office. Quinny-kins got ride of the DP in Illinois earlier this year.
Why are the 3 killers still breathing after killing a woman and two CHILDREN.
WHY?!!!
In Texas…they would be history.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 31, 2011 at 2:03 AM

You don’t sign it, you live it. They expect that you will not betray your nation and most people never sign that pact either. You don’t sign an oath not to rape someone either but if you do, they punish you for doing so.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 1:56 AM

I just don’t see capital punishment as a requirement for having a freedom loving, law abiding society. I don’t think Israel takes the sanctity of life lightly, but they don’t have capital punishment (except for one instance).

I don’t care enough to strenuously argue one way or the other, though; it’s never been an issue I strongly cared about. If some scumbag murderer gets a needle in his arm, it doesn’t improve my life, nor does it hurt me.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 2:03 AM

angreyed does not understand history. Let’s review:

We helped the Shah of Iran come to power, and he “oppressed” some people – many of them BAD people – and helped Iran become a force that FURTHERED development in the world.

The DEMOCRATS – specifically Jimmy Carter – booted him out and put Islamofascist Ayatollah Kohmeni in power – who thanked us by holding innocent Americans Hostage for 444 days and STARTED the trend of WIDESPREAD Terrorism and Suicide bombing to “get their way”.

Carter IS the Father of Modern Terrorism.

Oh – and Muslims don’t hate us for ANYTHING we do or do not do: They HATE us because of what we Are NOT: Muslim Islamopfascist Extremists who BELIEVE that ALL Westerners should be killed to cleanse our path through Allah to the 47 virgins in the Afterlife.

Ron Paul likes that thinking~

williamg on December 31, 2011 at 2:04 AM

You sound like a politician.

It’s not about money. It’s about justice.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 2:02 A

But when it’s cost prohibitive to dole out justice, you save the revenue. The current justice system is horrible. Not only do they have many non-violent offenders jailed away for too long but they waste billions on taking care of the human filth.

Pitchforker on December 31, 2011 at 2:04 AM

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 2:02 AM

And justice isn’t about revenge.

gyrmnix on December 31, 2011 at 2:04 AM

1. Just so I understand you correctly, are you saying that the accidental execution of innocent people is not an injustice?

No. You misunderstood. I’m speaking in principles at the moment.

2. How do I feel about Nuremberg? In cases of crimes against humanity – i.e., genocide and slavery – I don’t oppose capital punishment so long as the evidence is deemed indisputable and the accused are afforded the opportunity to give their side of the story. My opposition to capital punishment has its limits.

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 1:26 AM

Do you not realize that admission devalues human life? Well, the position against capital punishment devalues it as a whole but it is illustrated here perfectly. Since you don’t actually hold the position of being against capital punishment on principle, what is the threshhold? Or, what number of innocents slaughtered would be “okay” for capital punishment to be applied?

My number is 1. Let that represent x.
X plus _?_ for your number

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 1:36 AM

Oh, I disagree that opposition to capital punishment devalues human life. If there was no risk of executing innocents, I wouldn’t oppose it. I maintain that the execution of innocent people is an injustice even if it isn’t intended. It is my desire to protect innocent life that compels me to oppose capital punishment.

So why is Nuremberg different? Because there was no doubt that all involved were guilty. As someone stated above, the evidence was not in dispute. There wasn’t the slightest possibility that any of them were innocent. So I guess you could actually say that if our standards in the U.S. were higher than they are for using the death penalty, I probably wouldn’t even oppose it then. At the moment, though, I can’t say I feel that way.

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 2:05 AM

You see, for those who oppose the death penalty, it’s all about their belief system and ideology. They are incapable of seeing the human side of the issue, i.e., the victims.

For them those dead lives are just statistics.

In a way, I think those people are dead inside, themselves.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 2:05 AM

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 2:03 AM

Israel should bring back the DP.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 31, 2011 at 2:06 AM

And justice isn’t about revenge.

gyrmnix on December 31, 2011 at 2:04 AM

I’ll leave revenge to God. But justice is a balancing of the scales. You take a life, especially in the savage ways that have been mentioned, you forfeit your own.

You are a barbarian if you don’t see that. Only animals lack a sense of justice.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 2:06 AM

All 3 were given the death penalty-then Lyin’ George Ryan commuted all DP sentences to life right before he left office. Quinny-kins got ride of the DP in Illinois earlier this year.
Why are the 3 killers still breathing after killing a woman and two CHILDREN.
WHY?!!!
In Texas…they would be history.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 31, 2011 at 2:03 AM

If you showed me that they were living in luxury, I’d be outraged. But I’m sorry, their simple existence just doesn’t bother me. They’ll live out their days as a caged animal, and then they’ll die.

If they escape some day, I’ll take it all back. I’ll push in the needle myself once they lock them back up.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 2:07 AM

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 2:06 AM

+100

annoyinglittletwerp on December 31, 2011 at 2:07 AM

I just don’t see capital punishment as a requirement for having a freedom loving, law abiding society.

I see it as a loss of confidence in ourselves. We no longer believe in justice and making violent offender non-dangerous is all we seem capable of bringing ourselves to do.

I don’t think Israel takes the sanctity of life lightly, but they don’t have capital punishment (except for one instance).

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 2:03 AM

Didn’t they trade a 1,000 terrorists for one Israeli? Seems they take the sanctity of life entirely too seriously. The end result is more dead Israeli’s when all is said and done and the same seems to be the case in the justice system as well.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 2:08 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6