I wonder what that is in a heart that makes someone see justice in different way like that.
I know many pro-lifers who say the death penalty is never right, but for someone like Paul to move over there makes no sense to me.
I wish they would bring back the elctric chair at least, or even hanging by the neck until dead.
If someone murders in the first degree, then this someone, White Black, Red, or Yellow deserves to die, and forfiets his, or her life. Justice is clearly seen at times, and must be acted upon.
Many times there's not enough evidence, and so the sentence may have to be different.
That's a sad note about Ron, but I still like him for Commander-in-Chief over Newt "Same Old" Gingrich, or Mitt "Moderate-Mormon" Romney.
Another crude anti-Ron Paul piece from Mr. Hays. If you'd like to see how Ron Paul frames his opposition to the federal death penalty, head here.
No doubt, Steve will once again pipe in accusing me of being a Ron Paul cultist, which is a pretty absurd accusation to level at an anarchist such as myself. On this issue, for example (among several prominent others), I disagree with Ron Paul. He opposes the federal death penalty only on pragmatic and states' rights grounds, but I oppose the death penalty on fundamental moral grounds.
Bottom line: Steve can't stand that Ron Paul is lifting the veil on the disastrous and murderous neoconservative foreign policy agenda, and so he's doing his best to slander a good man with deceptions and outright fabrications (such as trying to paint Ron Paul as an anti-Semite). I would suggest you do your Ron Paul research elsewhere.
And if my tone here sounds a bit harsh, I apologize to you. I've tried to be cordial to Steve in the past, but he has demonstrated that he's only in this to smear Ron Paul.
"Another crude anti-Ron Paul piece from Mr. Hays."
All I did was link to a critique of his position. Notice that Jeff hasn't rebutted the CJLF critique.
"No doubt, Steve will once again pipe in accusing me of being a Ron Paul cultist, which is a pretty absurd accusation to level at an anarchist such as myself."
As an anarchist, Jeff rejects our Constitutional form of gov't.
"He opposes the federal death penalty only on pragmatic and states' rights grounds..."
Since the death penalty is a Constitutional method of punishment (5th & 14th amendments), one can't oppose capital punishment on Constitutional grounds.
"...but I oppose the death penalty on fundamental moral grounds."
A euphemism for bleeding-heart liberalism.
"Bottom line: Steve can't stand that Ron Paul is lifting the veil on the disastrous and murderous neoconservative foreign policy agenda..."
i) That's a favorite straw man of Ron Paulettes, as if there are only two possible positions on foreign policy: Ron Paul's "noninterventionalism" and the neocon alternative.
This represents a simple-minded groupthink dichotomy.
ii) Furthermore, as an anarchist, Jeff's opposition to American foreign policy runs much deeper than his opposition to the neocon variant. So Jeff is dissembling.
"...and so he's doing his best to slander a good man with deceptions and outright fabrications (such as trying to paint Ron Paul as an anti-Semite)..."
I linked to a firsthand report, which also linked to a Ron Paul video. Jeff has done nothing to disprove the factuality of the eyewitness account.
I'm not disputing that Ron Paul said that. (Although I'm not seeing a link to any video or transcript.) What I was saying is that this is not the way in which Ron Paul typically frames his opposition to the federal death penalty. I'm certainly no expert on this particular question (ie, whether the implementation of the death penalty exhibits racial bias), and so can't really comment either way. But if Ron Paul made a mistake, he made a mistake. Big deal.
"That's a favorite straw man of Ron Paulettes, as if there are only two possible positions on foreign policy: Ron Paul's "noninterventionalism" and the neocon alternative."
I presented no such straw man. I merely said that Steve's foreign policy views appear to me to be of the typical neoconservative variety.
I wonder what that is in a heart that makes someone see justice in different way like that.
ReplyDeleteI know many pro-lifers who say the death penalty is never right, but for someone like Paul to move over there makes no sense to me.
I wish they would bring back the elctric chair at least, or even hanging by the neck until dead.
If someone murders in the first degree, then this someone, White Black, Red, or Yellow deserves to die, and forfiets his, or her life. Justice is clearly seen at times, and must be acted upon.
Many times there's not enough evidence, and so the sentence may have to be different.
That's a sad note about Ron, but I still like him for Commander-in-Chief over Newt "Same Old" Gingrich, or Mitt "Moderate-Mormon" Romney.
Hi donsands,
ReplyDeleteAnother crude anti-Ron Paul piece from Mr. Hays. If you'd like to see how Ron Paul frames his opposition to the federal death penalty, head here.
No doubt, Steve will once again pipe in accusing me of being a Ron Paul cultist, which is a pretty absurd accusation to level at an anarchist such as myself. On this issue, for example (among several prominent others), I disagree with Ron Paul. He opposes the federal death penalty only on pragmatic and states' rights grounds, but I oppose the death penalty on fundamental moral grounds.
Bottom line: Steve can't stand that Ron Paul is lifting the veil on the disastrous and murderous neoconservative foreign policy agenda, and so he's doing his best to slander a good man with deceptions and outright fabrications (such as trying to paint Ron Paul as an anti-Semite). I would suggest you do your Ron Paul research elsewhere.
And if my tone here sounds a bit harsh, I apologize to you. I've tried to be cordial to Steve in the past, but he has demonstrated that he's only in this to smear Ron Paul.
Whoops, messed up that first link:
ReplyDeleteRon Paul on capital punishment
JEFF SAID:
ReplyDelete"Another crude anti-Ron Paul piece from Mr. Hays."
All I did was link to a critique of his position. Notice that Jeff hasn't rebutted the CJLF critique.
"No doubt, Steve will once again pipe in accusing me of being a Ron Paul cultist, which is a pretty absurd accusation to level at an anarchist such as myself."
As an anarchist, Jeff rejects our Constitutional form of gov't.
"He opposes the federal death penalty only on pragmatic and states' rights grounds..."
Since the death penalty is a Constitutional method of punishment (5th & 14th amendments), one can't oppose capital punishment on Constitutional grounds.
"...but I oppose the death penalty on fundamental moral grounds."
A euphemism for bleeding-heart liberalism.
"Bottom line: Steve can't stand that Ron Paul is lifting the veil on the disastrous and murderous neoconservative foreign policy agenda..."
i) That's a favorite straw man of Ron Paulettes, as if there are only two possible positions on foreign policy: Ron Paul's "noninterventionalism" and the neocon alternative.
This represents a simple-minded groupthink dichotomy.
ii) Furthermore, as an anarchist, Jeff's opposition to American foreign policy runs much deeper than his opposition to the neocon variant. So Jeff is dissembling.
"...and so he's doing his best to slander a good man with deceptions and outright fabrications (such as trying to paint Ron Paul as an anti-Semite)..."
I linked to a firsthand report, which also linked to a Ron Paul video. Jeff has done nothing to disprove the factuality of the eyewitness account.
I'm not disputing that Ron Paul said that. (Although I'm not seeing a link to any video or transcript.) What I was saying is that this is not the way in which Ron Paul typically frames his opposition to the federal death penalty. I'm certainly no expert on this particular question (ie, whether the implementation of the death penalty exhibits racial bias), and so can't really comment either way. But if Ron Paul made a mistake, he made a mistake. Big deal.
ReplyDelete"That's a favorite straw man of Ron Paulettes, as if there are only two possible positions on foreign policy: Ron Paul's "noninterventionalism" and the neocon alternative."
I presented no such straw man. I merely said that Steve's foreign policy views appear to me to be of the typical neoconservative variety.