Death Penalty.Paul V. Romney

The death penalty is a serious issue, needing lots of soul searching.

Now, lets discuss the issue, not the OP, shall we?

 

I agree, and I agree with RP as well, its a state issue not a job for the Federal Govt.

A republic is the most conservative, and the most liberal because it clearly lets each state vote accordingly to the will of the voters in each state. It's genius.

I, personally am for the Death penalty, but only in cases where there is either an eye witness to a 1st degree murder, or DNA to a murder or other heinous crime, I dont think there should ever be any doubt as far as innocence. But thats just me.

Again, I think it should be left to the states, and not in the hands of the FEDS. Its a very personal issue, complicated. Its ridiculous to think there could be a "one law fits all" mandate from the FEDS.

 

But what happens in a state like Texas where they are more than happy to execute anybody who catches their fancy regardless of guilt or innocence? Should they be allowed to purely as a matter of state's rights?

Don't get me wrong I'm not opposed to greater state's rights but leaving something involving the death of a human being up to people who have no moral qualms about executing another just seems....wrong.

 

Its an issue I struggle with.
Like you, BW, a 100% no doubt conviction is necessary for me to even consider DP.
While I agree that its an absolute must to remove some people from society, I hope that I will never confuse punishment with revenge, and be able to find forgiveness in my heart, instead of giving in to bitterness and vengeance.

 

Well it is wrong, and why I would never support it, and probably not live in Texas, or visit Texas, or have any thing to do with Texas?

I have found the states that are the heaviest with the religious fervor are the states that just love the Death Penalty. How strange is that?

Back to the OP intent, we dont live in a perfect world, but we can only try to make it as perfect as we can make it, the republic while not perfect does give everyone in their respective states the legal system they vote into power.

The Federal Govt has few powers, beyond making the country as a whole safe, and not this militarism nation building nonsense we have been doing for the last decade either, that clearly an offensive strategy. National DEFENSE deals with protecting OUR borders here at home, not abroad. We have no "borders" abroad.

 

Ain't it funny?

 

Insanely hilarious.

 

Insane is right.

 

and romney is wrong on everything else.

 

Yes ..Keep attacking anyone who points out positions Paul has taken..That might be bad.
Focus instead on name calling and phony polling data.

The Paul way.

 

just giving my opinion on big government romney's positions. I will not be voting for him. I would take any candidate up there over big government romney.

 

You do realize that If a meteor killed everyone else but Paul that he would be elected to That same old
Big Government you hate so much ?
Imagine that ?
A guy who hates big government and people who hate big government want him to be the leader of the same big government.
A leader who has never led.
A Money guy who never went to school..yet thinks he knows all ?
A guy who never created a single business.. doesn't know a thing about labor law and contracts..
A guy who says dismantle the war machine without telling the sheep which machine you might be running from.
A guy who says Pot aint so bad..when conservatives know better.
A guy who says Iran aint so bad.....but conservatives know better.

Conservatives know better.
Paul only thinks he does.

 

Clearly your first remark doesn't make any sense when Ron Paul is running for the Presidency to limit the Federal Government and the Executive Branch. Since he is for Limited Government he must not run for a Government position... What kind of Logic is that? *Slow Clap* Please let us continue on MBB with your "glorious" logic.

Never led what? A State, a Marching Band or a Division? Clearly the qualifications in your mind is anything that looks like Romney and has done what Romney has done. Wow... bravo! So you're basing your entire analysis on whether he is a credible candidate by comparing everything based upon Romney's performance. If he doesn't match up ~95% of the way he doesn't deserve to run. *Slow Clap* Bravo bravo bravo MBB please continue with your tirade.

What is your definition of a Conservative? Currently a Conservative means anyone breathing that calls themselves a Conservative. So your entire point there is another logical fail as "Conservatives" of today range from Authoritarians to Libertarians...

How do you know Pot is bad?
How do you know Iran is bad?
Where are the Romney deregulations you seem to rant about before in a different thread but refuse to clarify on them?

 

Ron Paul has been consistent on nearly every issue. He's been saying the same sht for like 20+ years. The only issue he has changed his mind on his the death penalty and he has acknowledged that and explained himself.

So yeah, basically you are trying to soak as much juice out of this one change of heart as you can and it is not working.

So now you're taking this issue, and blowing it up to compare that to Romney, a man who is notorious for flip-flopping? Don't be dishonest here.

You don't just hear them. You see it in action.

Keeping score? Dude, if you kept score, you know it would be like 1-10000 right? Paul has been consistent on every other issue.

1 view.

With all that being said, I do agree more with Romney's views on the death penalty.

 

What "conservatives" would those be?

You mean the Neoconservatives? These (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) bags right here! These guys are more in line with Marxism then Obama is, of course you just parrot what they say, without really understanding what ANY of this really means, this much is obvious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Kristol

The most ridiculous reply, and I hear it all the time, friggin Marxist!

 

Doesn't Romney understand that we already have more people locked away (per capita) than any country on the planet? He should. Before people (like me) start calling 'liberty' in America a sham.

 

So I assume you're for legalizing all drugs?

 

I like Mitt, but these comments are sad.

What I would like to hear a politician say is:

I am personally against abortion, but I realize that as an elected leader my job is to uphold the constitution and do the will of the people so my personal religious beliefs have zero to do with the question abortion or the morning after pill.

If the state is going to restrict individual liberty, freedom, or the persuit of happiness it needs a darn good reason.


The claim : I personally think a zygote is a person, but have no support for this claim other than personal belief does not cut it.

Cowtowing to religious special interest groups does not cut it or the argument "God does not like abortion" .

This is not about promoting abortion or the pro life position but promoting adherence to the constitution which means having "real" debate on the issue.

There has been very little.

 

I have been ever since my man Rushbo got 'counseling' for 20,000 Oxy tabs. Why should someone go to prison for a half gram of coke? And, why should anybody go to prison for a couple hundred dollars worth of pot when GW got community service (that he didn't have to show up for) for getting nabbed (in Texas) for coke possession?

I say retire the judges, open the prisons, and expunge the records.

Just sayin'.

 

So lets recap..
Paul is against the death Penalty after being for it..
Paul is not for enforcing existing laws on Pot..or for that Matter IMMIGRATION.
Paul is not for enforcing Sanctions on Iran for its Nuclear bomb development.
Paul is not for strong deterrent using prisons for hard time criminals..or 3 strikes and you're out for drug users.
Would Paul crack down on the OWS protesters..??
Probably not..
Would Paul send troops and war material to Israel if they were attacked by 3 ARAB countries?
We dont know..maybe not.
Would Paul impose trade sanctions against China for its cheating on USA companies?
Nope.

Would Paul create jobs by bringing home 400,000 troops from overseas ?
Nope.
Would Paul do anything to effect change in his short and only 4 year stint as President ?
No.

so..Why bother..

 

Good points. I agree

 

Why do you have such poor paragraph structure? It's weird

 

1. Death Penalty is based completely around Morals so a Moral change is allowed but, you're calling him a Flip Flopper in order to sidestep Romney's record. Apparently being against something during his Governorship and then once he is preparing for his Republican Nomination back in 06-08 he changes his stances to match that of "Republicans". Try actually debating that what he did was actually flip flopping and not a Morality change.
2. Enforce Laws that create crime and imprisonment on a Morally based personal choice? Clearly you want your Morals enforced by the Government because you lack the Will and Strength to stop others from choosing their own path. Is it because you know you cannot debate it?
3. Immigration? Ah... you mean not putting up a Wall with Machine gunners every 20-30ft. Clearly if he doesn't support putting up Berlin Wall II he must be for rampant illegals in the country! When he calls for the end of illegals getting aid from Social Services he must be for illegal immigration... right... Go guard the Border yourself oh Champion of what is "Right".
4. Prove they're creating a Nuclear Bomb other than from your own words and actual evidence proving it to be the case. The real answer is you cannot provide any evidence of its creation and you're purely spewing words from the MSM.
5. Strong deterrent is Death? I would see 50yrs locked in a Cage as more of a sentence for the person to seek Redemption as well as Suffer for the wrathful behavior towards others.
6. Drugs are a Personal Choice just as much as someone smoking, drinking, skydiving and weightlifting is. All of them are potentially dangerous and people feed off of the feeling while they're performing such activities.
7. Crack down? Ah... you're for the Elimination of the 1st Amendment when it applies to a group that doesn't follow the same thought process as you. Clearly you're not for a Republic or the Constitution.
8. Three Arab Countries attacking Israel... that is so idiotic considering they have 300 Nukes. They could level all of the Middle East with ease ten times over! What do they have to fear from foreign invasions?
9. Cheating on US Companies? Where is this "Cheating"? Because their country doesn't have Regulations for their Environment or Workforce so you're expecting them to have the same Rules applied to our own Businesses? Good luck imposing that.

Also where are those Romney DEREGULATIONS!?