Just because he supports women's rights doesn't mean he's not a piece of sh!t. Sure, he might be changed but I don't think we need to take that chance. There's got to be a slew of better candidates than him that could take the position.
I dunno what my agenda is, but you seem to be, and that's a little befuddling. This notion of categories is also seems to be arbitrary, as of your own pre-fabbed assesment maybe.
The end results are still the most telling, not some molded notion of "human rights" with a checklist of contrived values.
The end results are still the most telling, not some molded notion of "human rights" with a checklist of contrived values.
i don't profess to know whether or not he has actually changed, but i think it would be frustrating to want to contribute and help the world, but be rejected by those who have never even met you. it would be sort of like a catch 22. people would look at you and say "he's such an evil person, always doing evil things, never doing good things". yet, when you try and show them that you do good things, they don't allow you to.
i think it is important to give people the opportunity to contribute. it gives people a sense of accomplishment, and shows them how rewarding it is to contribute, thus encouraging more of it. i feel pity for criminals and amoral people who try and do the right thing, only to be punished, rejected, and laughed at.
and what's the worst that can happen if you take the chance? the worst that can happen is that we find out he hasn't changed, and kick him out. no harm done. and if we find out that he has changed, we have gained an ally.
When he supports real democracy, maybe we'll give him that chance.
Well the worst that could happen would be that he ignores human rights violations. I really don't want to put my trust in the UN to kick him out when he doesn't even need to be there in the first place. One other bad thing is the image it puts out. Heading the Human Rights Body when countless times he himself has violated human rights? What kind of message does that put out?
Home just in time to skewer W . . .
W must be confused
"We should never execute anybody who is mentally retarded," President Bush said, according to a transcript of the remarks provided by the White House. He went on, "And our court system protects people who don't understand the nature of the crime they've committed nor the punishment they are about to receive."
When Mr. Bush was governor of Texas, he opposed legislation to bar executions of the mentally retarded and he maintained that position during his campaign for president . . . A White House spokeswoman said the president's remarks today did not reflect a change in his views. "This is not a change of policy," said Claire Buchan "He's talking about the standards they had in Texas."
TX execution of retarded man 2000
"I don't understand. I just know they're going to kill me," said the man described by his lawyers as having an IQ of 50 to 60 and the reasoning capacity of a 7-year-old.
After 21 years in prison, two competency trials, two murder trials and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the mentally retarded and the death penalty, Penry faces execution by injection Thursday night for raping a woman and stabbing her to death at her East Texas home in 1979.
"Why is it that my case is drawing a lot of attention?" the 44-year-old Penry asked in a recent prison interview. "How far away is it?"
One of his attorneys, Katherine Puzone, said that his intelligence was measured at 50 to 60 by "IQ tests after IQ tests after IQ tests. The notion he is not mentally retarded I find offensive."
Penry said he willingly talked to police. "I got scared. I told them I did it. I really did not. I kind of regret that now," he said.
Penry would not be the first mentally retarded inmate executed. In August, Oliver David Cruz, whose IQ tested as low as 63, was put to death for the 1988 abduction, rape and killing of a woman in San Antonio.
Comparing W to Muammar is certainly . . . retarded. Even Bush's open support for executing the mentally retarded convicted of heinous crimes can be excused. Bush is retarded . . . or better yet I will use the TX prosecutors lingo . . .
Prosecutors say he is ignorant but not retarded.
I stand corrected W is ignorant not retarded.
W must be confused
"We should never execute anybody who is mentally retarded," President Bush said, according to a transcript of the remarks provided by the White House. He went on, "And our court system protects people who don't understand the nature of the crime they've committed nor the punishment they are about to receive."
When Mr. Bush was governor of Texas, he opposed legislation to bar executions of the mentally retarded and he maintained that position during his campaign for president . . . A White House spokeswoman said the president's remarks today did not reflect a change in his views. "This is not a change of policy," said Claire Buchan "He's talking about the standards they had in Texas."
TX execution of retarded man 2000
"I don't understand. I just know they're going to kill me," said the man described by his lawyers as having an IQ of 50 to 60 and the reasoning capacity of a 7-year-old.
After 21 years in prison, two competency trials, two murder trials and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the mentally retarded and the death penalty, Penry faces execution by injection Thursday night for raping a woman and stabbing her to death at her East Texas home in 1979.
"Why is it that my case is drawing a lot of attention?" the 44-year-old Penry asked in a recent prison interview. "How far away is it?"
One of his attorneys, Katherine Puzone, said that his intelligence was measured at 50 to 60 by "IQ tests after IQ tests after IQ tests. The notion he is not mentally retarded I find offensive."
Penry said he willingly talked to police. "I got scared. I told them I did it. I really did not. I kind of regret that now," he said.
Penry would not be the first mentally retarded inmate executed. In August, Oliver David Cruz, whose IQ tested as low as 63, was put to death for the 1988 abduction, rape and killing of a woman in San Antonio.
Comparing W to Muammar is certainly . . . retarded. Even Bush's open support for executing the mentally retarded convicted of heinous crimes can be excused. Bush is retarded . . . or better yet I will use the TX prosecutors lingo . . .
Prosecutors say he is ignorant but not retarded.
I stand corrected W is ignorant not retarded.
Well the worst that could happen would be that he ignores human rights violations.
but that is already happening, at least according to what i have seen here.
I really don't want to put my trust in the UN to kick him out when he doesn't even need to be there in the first place. One other bad thing is the image it puts out. Heading the Human Rights Body when countless times he himself has violated human rights? What kind of message does that put out?
i agree, we don't need him there. we don't need any one person there. but i think that this move is good because it shows acceptance of people who show a desire to improve. think of the message it would send if the UN refused to put him there for the reasons outlined in this thread. it would be like saying to the leaders of other nations: don't bother improving, you'll never be accepted and trusted anyways.
by putting him there, we send this message: it is to your benefit to improve, because it will gain you the trust and companionship of many other nations. and that's what the united nations is about, isn't it? it's about getting nations around the world to cooperate with each other for the good of humankind. i believe in order for that to happen, the nations have to trust each other. and how would we expect libya to trust the other nations, if the other nations look upon it with scorn and says "it doesn't matter how hard you try, you'll never be one of us"?
but that is already happening, at least according to what i have seen here.
I really don't want to put my trust in the UN to kick him out when he doesn't even need to be there in the first place. One other bad thing is the image it puts out. Heading the Human Rights Body when countless times he himself has violated human rights? What kind of message does that put out?
i agree, we don't need him there. we don't need any one person there. but i think that this move is good because it shows acceptance of people who show a desire to improve. think of the message it would send if the UN refused to put him there for the reasons outlined in this thread. it would be like saying to the leaders of other nations: don't bother improving, you'll never be accepted and trusted anyways.
by putting him there, we send this message: it is to your benefit to improve, because it will gain you the trust and companionship of many other nations. and that's what the united nations is about, isn't it? it's about getting nations around the world to cooperate with each other for the good of humankind. i believe in order for that to happen, the nations have to trust each other. and how would we expect libya to trust the other nations, if the other nations look upon it with scorn and says "it doesn't matter how hard you try, you'll never be one of us"?
Actually I was going to put that in my last reply but I forgot. This is just further evidence of why we need to redo this whole UN thing.
Like I said, we should only give him a chance if he improves his country first. When he helps form a democracy in Libya, I think we should maybe give him a chance.
Like I said, we should only give him a chance if he improves his country first. When he helps form a democracy in Libya, I think we should maybe give him a chance.
i don't think that establishing a democracy is the only way to improve a country. he has made many improvements, including promoting the interests of women (more women now graduate from universities than men), and he's completing a network of underground pipelines that provide water to all of his country (the great man-made river).
i don't think that establishing a democracy is the only way to improve a country. he has made many improvements, including promoting the interests of women (more women now graduate from universities than men), and he's completing a network of underground pipelines that provide water to all of his country (the great man-made river).
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
It could be the US which has one of the highest state sponsored murder rates of all the 1st world countries and is jailing an unknown number of unnamed people without due process.
Edit: My point is by Western standards the US's human rights record is at least questionable. And the Palestinians would put the US in the same catergory as Nazi Germany and Israel.
What exactly are you skewering GW for? Changing his mind? Agreeing with the Supreme Court? Being politically expedient while he was govenor?
So what, so what, you have a point. The Texas legislature could never get a ban through to present to the Govenor.
BTW to finish this story, Penry has been convicted and sentenced to death for the third time by a Texas jury. Three of them have now been convinced that Penry is not retarded. The Supreme Court has already overturned his convictions twice and if I were to bet they will soon go 3 for 3.
DaveSohmer quote
1.What exactly is our "state sponsored murder rate?"
2. What exactly are you skewering GW for? Changing his mind? Agreeing with the Supreme Court? Being politically expedient while he was govenor?
So what, so what, you have a point. The Texas legislature could never get a ban through to present to the Govenor.
-----------------------------
1. The number of United States sponsered killings according to the ACLU is:
"Since capital punishment returned in 1976 more than 80 people have been found to be innocent, and subsequently released from death rows around the U.S. while there have been over 780 executions nationally. Thus, for every 10 (approximately) executions there has been one person found to be innocent and spared from being wrongfully executed. Another way to interpret that is to say that the margin of error is 10%. "
We're averaging around 100 executions a year. I don't know if you want to call that a hundred murders or 10 or since we found the ten 0 or some other number.
2. I guess I'd go with accusing him of political expedience and extrapolate out from that a lack of leadership, an interest in his own political career over the lives ov innocent people. A guy with that kind of moral integrity, geez, could grow up stealing the Presidency. Oh man. He'd make a fine example as a human rights leader too.
1.What exactly is our "state sponsored murder rate?"
2. What exactly are you skewering GW for? Changing his mind? Agreeing with the Supreme Court? Being politically expedient while he was govenor?
So what, so what, you have a point. The Texas legislature could never get a ban through to present to the Govenor.
-----------------------------
1. The number of United States sponsered killings according to the ACLU is:
"Since capital punishment returned in 1976 more than 80 people have been found to be innocent, and subsequently released from death rows around the U.S. while there have been over 780 executions nationally. Thus, for every 10 (approximately) executions there has been one person found to be innocent and spared from being wrongfully executed. Another way to interpret that is to say that the margin of error is 10%. "
We're averaging around 100 executions a year. I don't know if you want to call that a hundred murders or 10 or since we found the ten 0 or some other number.
2. I guess I'd go with accusing him of political expedience and extrapolate out from that a lack of leadership, an interest in his own political career over the lives ov innocent people. A guy with that kind of moral integrity, geez, could grow up stealing the Presidency. Oh man. He'd make a fine example as a human rights leader too.
ThePresence
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 27,727
- 16
- 81
How about you review US foreign policy back to 1950 and you will find many instances where our government openly supported despots, dictators, and the othewise corrupt over real democracy. The most egregious off the top of my head is supporting the coup against the democratic election of the socialist Allende in Chile (Kissinger action, who of course lied about it). We've supported EVERY dictator in Indonesia (technically two). Musharraf is certainly a shining example of US support for real democratic leaders. And of course China . . . Taiwan elects their leader. We deny they exist as a country.
Does anyone believe GWB is a decent man who just recently saw the error in his ways and now supports a ban on executing MR out of the goodness of his heart and clarity of perspective? Of course not. And per his spokesperson he hasn't changed his mind at all. We all know GWB's review of death penalty cases in TX entailed:
TX: We got another one for you, Sir.
W: Did the jury say guilty?
TX: Yes.
W: Fry 'em.
TX: But Governor, this one is retarded.
W: How retarded?
TX: Well technically he's at the border between moderate and mild retardation.
W: Umm, so you could say he's mildly retarded.
TX: Sure . . . actually one psychiatrist even removed the diagnosis from his record once.
W: So he's not retarded. Fry 'em.
For reference . . . psychiatrists rarely give or evaluate IQ tests. It is typically done by clinical psychologists or neurodevelopmental psychologists. Bush didn't give a hoot then and doesn't care now. Bush could be a compassionate person in every aspect of his life but the willingness to allow the execution of people like Penry is troubling. Bush lies for political gain. I can accept it . . . I mean come on Clinton just left office. But playing political games with people's lives cannot be excused.
I refuse to ever apply for any position in TX b/c it is filled with bass-ackwards people. Last month I had a child that was clearly slow. A 14 year-old who was 6' and weighed 210 pounds. He could play spades, boardgames, and was quite a good basketball player. But his speech was nearly incomprehensible if you asked him a question (basically requiring him to think and talk at the same time). According to the family, "people talk like that around here." To which I responded, "even people in TX don't speak like THAT!" He could read some and write as well. His full scale IQ was 54. Everyone describes this kid as a big, lovable albeit slow child . . . but he came to us in handcuffs. After decoding his speech patterns and learning not to stress his mind too much, I could easily understand him. TX and many other states assess competency to stand trial based on criteria designed to err on the side of INCLUSION. Ridiculous and certainly not humane. Sure a few lowlifes may beat a more lenient system . . . particularly if the available experts are not very good. But what do you think happens in our current system which has few protections for the mentally-challenged. The kid I mentioned above may catch a bullet someday b/c he's going to get even bigger, become a touch more difficult with age (teenagers), and he's hard to understand (verbal IQ of 49). He would understand STOP but if you made it any more complicated he's in trouble. A just society protects those that need it most. Bush gives the impression that he wants to protect those that have the most.
Be honest . . . if someone has an IQ of 72 (technically, normal b/c it is within 2 SD) you think they should get the chair but an IQ of 68 or 62 will not? It's a distinction without difference. Medicine can acknowledge the truth b/c we are fact-based (usually). BS politicians live on such fringes b/c it allows them to lie with impunity. If Bush had his way he would expedite (read:truncate) the appeals process for all capital cases. Sure you kill felons faster but you also greatly increase the odds of killing the innocent and the marginally competent. Bush is either too simple to understand the concept or he doesn't care (didn't care if you believe he's had a change of heart).
Another question, Dave. How many times does the Supreme Court have to overturn a conviction before somebody steps up to say . . . enough? A jury said, OJ was not guilty.
We hang our case on a technicality. The laws provide for a mechanism of executing people convicted of unlawful killing. Our response is the lawful killing of unlawful killers. But it is not morality that drives such laws. Nations change laws all the time about what constitutes a lawful killing. Nations often ignore or do not appropriately punish unlawful killing by individuals and authorities. And of course, some nations say you cannot morally justify the intentional killing of anyone. Abortion is not murder b/c of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Many Americans disagree. Capital punishment is not murder b/c of our system of laws. Many Americans disagree.
Whatever the truth is, if we stop executing people nobody, not even God, is going to be able to accuse us of state sponsered murder, committing exactly the same crime as an example to those who commit it first. If murder is wrong, it's wrong. We live in a civilization fully capable of separating killers so they can't kill again. We aren't in the dark ages, I mean the Dark Ages.
I sadly concur with Bali's assesment of Bush's primitive moral evolution, but if expediency is accetpable at times, I'm going to have to take a hard look at Kadafi. In a country full of barbaric women haters, a compassionate dictator would be just the ticket. Put a democracy in there and the men will keep the women off stage for sure.
I sadly concur with Bali's assesment of Bush's primitive moral evolution, but if expediency is accetpable at times, I'm going to have to take a hard look at Kadafi. In a country full of barbaric women haters, a compassionate dictator would be just the ticket. Put a democracy in there and the men will keep the women off stage for sure.
Our foreign policy back to the fifties was based on a simple concept of "For or Against Communism" It led to some obviously unfortunate alliances that are easily ridiculed today. Our policy regarding Taiwan is, to say the least, puzzling.
Why can't he change his mind? He has apparently done so in regards to his policy towards Iraq. Of course admit that and you wouldn't be able to go off on some rant about him. I guess the Supreme Court and the last President weren't capable of having a change of heart or clarity of perspective on this issue either.
I don't know, where do you set the standard? You have to draw the line somewhere that's why it is called a standard. As far as truncating the process goes there is a lot of BS to be truncated. Death penalty cases however should be allowed to run their course. I don't know how many times the Supreme Court has to rule. Shall we truncate that process also? Probably, since you seem to have issue with it. The death penalty debate is a different one altogether. We execute people in this country because they have committed a capital crime usually murder. We do not execute people in this country because they are of a certain religion or political affiliation or because we don't like what they say about the goverment.
It is funny that many people here complain in one instance because the goverment interferes too much or does not do what is popular. Then in the next instance when the goverment does allow popular opinion to dictate it's actions or the judicial procees is allowed to run it's course you accuse the goverment, or very often one particular man, of lacking introspection or being outright stupid. Make up your minds.
The fact is Kadaffi's regime is much worse in the human rights department. You can spew "categories", "pre-fabbed assessment" and the like all you want and it won't change that fact.
I fail to understand why anyone would shrug off the atrocities and oppression of Libya, while at the same time denouncing the US which has a very good human rights record. Why the double standard?
<BLOCKQUOTE>Quote
<HR>
Originally posted by: <B>EngineNr9</B>
As though it would be any less ironic for Bush to lead a Human Rights Body...
<HR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
The idiots are out in full force today. One this afternoon compares Bush to Saddam and now this one compares him to Gaddafi.
It's obvious that todays menu consisted of retard sandwiches in both FL and CA. and hivemaster and engine each had a couple.
Asshats.
hahaha.. that's great.
<HR>
Originally posted by: <B>EngineNr9</B>
As though it would be any less ironic for Bush to lead a Human Rights Body...
<HR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
The idiots are out in full force today. One this afternoon compares Bush to Saddam and now this one compares him to Gaddafi.
It's obvious that todays menu consisted of retard sandwiches in both FL and CA. and hivemaster and engine each had a couple.
Asshats.
hahaha.. that's great.
What I don't understand is where from comes the idea that anyone shrugged anything off. The effects of US imperialism are a lot more far reaching and subversive than whatever kind of blatant atrocities have gone on inside Libya, and naturally a lot harder to measure. The only assertion I make is that in the end they both suck when it comes to human rights. But hey, it looks like Gadaffi maybe had some kind of epiphany regarding the true value of compassion, but who knows.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter