long cut and paste
 

George W. Bush proclaims himself a born-again Christian. However, Bush and fellow self-anointed neo-Christians like House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, John Ashcroft, and sports arena Book of Revelations carnival hawker Franklin Graham appear to wallow in a "Christian" blood lust cult when it comes to practicing the teachings of the founder of Christianity. This cultist form of Christianity, with its emphasis on death rather than life, is also worrying the leaders of mainstream Christian religions, particularly the Pope.

One only has to check out Bush's record as Governor of Texas to see his own preference for death over life. During his tenure as Governor, Bush presided over a record setting 152 executions, including the 1998 execution of fellow born-again Christian Karla Faye Tucker, a convicted murderer who later led a prison ministry. Forty of Bush's executions were carried out in 2000, the year the Bush presidential campaign was spotlighting their candidate's strong law enforcement record. The Washington Post's Richard Cohen reported in October 2000 that one of the execution chamber's "tie-down team" members, Fred Allen, had to prepare so many people for lethal injections during 2000, he quit his job in disgust.

Bush mocked Tucker's appeal for clemency. In an interview with Talk magazine, Bush imitated Tucker's appeal for him to spare her life - pursing his lips, squinting his eyes, and in a squeaky voice saying, "Please don't kill me." That went too far for former GOP presidential candidate Gary Bauer, himself an evangelical Christian. "I think it is nothing short of unbelievable that the governor of a major state running for president thought it was acceptable to mock a woman he decided to put to death," said Bauer.

A former Texas Department of Public Safety officer, a devout Roman Catholic, told this reporter that evidence to the contrary, Bush was more than happy to ignore DNA data and documented cases of prosecutorial misconduct to send innocent people to the Huntsville, Texas lethal injection chamber. He said the number of executed mentally retarded, African Americans, and those who committed capital crimes as minors was proof that Bush was insensitive and a "phony Christian." When faced with similar problems in Illinois, Governor George Ryan, a Republican, commuted the death sentences of his state's death row inmates and released others after discovering they were wrongfully convicted. Yet the Republican Party is pillorying Ryan and John Ashcroft's Justice Department continues to investigate the former Governor for political malfeasance as if Bush and Ashcroft are without sin in such matters. Hypocrisy certainly rules in the Republican Party.

Bush's blood lust has been extended across the globe. He has given the CIA authority to assassinate those deemed a threat to U.S. national interests. Bush has virtually suspended Executive Orders 11905 (Gerald Ford), 12306 (Jimmy Carter), and 12333 (Ronald Reagan) which prohibit the assassination of foreign leaders. Bush's determination to kill Saddam Hussein, his family, and his top leaders with precision-guided missiles and tactical nuclear weapon-like Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) bombs is yet another indication of Bush's disregard for his Republican and Democratic predecessors. It now appears that in his zeal to kill Hussein, innocent civilian patrons of a Baghdad restaurant were killed by one of Bush's precision Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs). Like it or not, Saddam Hussein was recognized by over 100 nations as the leader of Iraq -- a member state of the United Nations. Hussein, like North Korea' Kim Jong Il, Syria's Bashir Assad, and Iran's Mohammed Khatami, are covered by Executive Order 12333, which the Bush mouthpieces claim is still in effect. Bush's "Christian" blood cult sees no other option than death for those who become his enemies. This doctrine is found no place in Christian theology.

Bush has not once prayed for the innocent civilians who died as a result of the U.S. attack on Iraq. He constantly "embeds" himself with the military at Goebbels-like speech fests and makes constant references to God when he refers to America's "victory" in Iraq, as if God endorses his sordid killing spree. He makes no mention of the children, women, and old men killed by America's "precision-guided" missiles and bombs and trigger-happy U.S. troops. In fact, Bush revels in indiscriminate blood letting. Since he never experienced such killing in Southeast Asia, when he was AWOL from his Texas Air National Guard unit, Bush just does not seem to understand the horror of a parent watching one's children having their heads and limbs blown off in a sudden blast of shrapnel or children witnessing their parents burning to death with their own body fat nurturing the flames.

Bush and his advisers, previously warned that Iraq's ancient artifacts and collection of historical documents and books were in danger of being looted or destroyed, instead, sat back while the Baghdad and Mosul museums and Baghdad Library were ransacked and destroyed. Cult leaders have historically attempted to destroy history in order to invent their own. The Soviets tried to obliterate Russia's Orthodox traditions, turning a number of churches into warehouses and animal barns. Cambodia's Pol Pot tried to wipe out Buddhism's famed Angkor Wat shrine in an attempt to stamp out his country's Buddhist history. In March 2001, while they were negotiating with the Bush administration on a natural gas pipeline, Afghanistan's Taliban blew up two massive 1600-year old Buddhas in Bamiyan. The Bush administration, itself run by fanatic religious cultists, barely made a fuss about the loss of the relics. It would not be the first time the cultists within the Bush administration ignored the pillaging of history's treasures.

The ransacking of Iraq's historical treasures is explainable when one considers what the blood cult Christians really think about Islam. Franklin Graham, the heir to the empire built up by his anti-Semitic father, Billy Graham, has decided being anti-Muslim is far more financially rewarding than being anti-Jewish. Billy Graham, history notes from the Nixon tapes, complained about the Jewish stranglehold on the media and Jews being responsible for pornography.

Franklin Graham continues to enjoy his father's unfettered and questionable access to the White House. But in the case of Bush, the younger Graham has a fanatic adherent. Graham has called Islam a "very evil and wicked" religion. He then announces he wants to go to Iraq. Graham obviously sees an opportunity to convert Muslims and unrepentant Eastern Christians, who owe their allegiance to Roman and Greek prelates, to his perverted form of blood cult Christianity. Graham says he is ready to send his Samaritan's Purse missionaries into Iraq to provide assistance. Muslims and mainstream Christians are wary that Graham wants to exchange food, water, and medicine for the baptism of Iraqis into his intolerant brand of Christianity. In the last Gulf War, Graham could not get away with his chicanery. The Desert Storm Commander, General Norman Schwarzkopf, stopped dead in the tracks Graham's plan to send 30,000 Arabic language Bibles to U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. Today's Pentagon shows no such compunction to put a rein on Graham. It invited him to give a Good Friday sermon at the Pentagon to the consternation of the Defense Department's Muslim employees. To make matters worse, under Bush's "Faith Based Initiative," Graham's Samaritan's Purse stands to receive U.S. government funds for its proselytizing efforts in Iraq, something that should be an affront to every American taxpayer.

Bush's self-proclaimed adherence to Christianity (during one of the presidential debates he said Jesus Christ was his favorite "philosopher") and his constant reference to a new international structure bypassing the United Nations system and long-standing international treaties are worrying the top leadership of the Roman Catholic Church. Well-informed sources close to the Vatican report that Pope John Paul II is growing increasingly concerned about Bush's ultimate intentions. The Pope has had experience with Bush's death fetish. Bush ignored the Pope's plea to spare the life of Karla Faye Tucker. To show that he was similarly ignorant of the world's mainstream religions, Bush also rejected an appeal to spare Tucker from the World Council of Churches - an organization that represents over 350 of the world's Protestant and Orthodox Churches. It did not matter that Bush's own Methodist Church and his parents' Episcopal Church are members of the World Council.

long ass cut and paste part 2
 

Bush's blood lust, his repeated commitment to Christian beliefs, and his constant references to "evil doers," in the eyes of many devout Catholic leaders, bear all the hallmarks of the one warned about in the Book of Revelations - the anti-Christ. People close to the Pope claim that amid these concerns, the Pontiff wishes he was younger and in better health to confront the possibility that Bush may represent the person prophesized in Revelations. John Paul II has always believed the world was on the precipice of the final confrontation between Good and Evil as foretold in the New Testament. Before he became Pope, Karol Cardinal Wojtyla said, "We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of the American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel." The Pope, who grew up facing the evils of Hitler and Stalin, knows evil when he sees it. Although we can all endlessly argue over the Pope's effectiveness in curtailing abuses within his Church, his accomplishments external to Catholicism are impressive.

According to journalists close to the Vatican, the Pope and his closest advisers are also concerned that the ultimate acts of evil - the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon - were known in advance by senior Bush administration officials. By permitting the attacks to take their course, there is a perception within the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy that a coup d'etat was implemented, one that gave Bush and his leadership near-dictatorial powers to carry out their agenda.

The Pope worked tirelessly to convince leaders of nations on the UN Security Council to oppose Bush's war resolution on Iraq. Vatican sources claim they had not seen the Pope more animated and determined since he fell ill to Parkinson's Disease. In the end, the Pope did convince the leaders of Mexico, Chile, Cameroon, and Guinea to oppose the U.S. resolution. If one were to believe in the Book of Revelations, as the Pope fervently does, he can seek solace in scoring a symbolic victory against the Bush administration. Whether Bush represents a dangerous right-wing ideologue who couples his political fanaticism with a neo-Christian blood cult (as I believe) or he is either the anti-Christ or heralds one, the Pope should know he has fought the good battle and has gained the respect and admiration of many non-Catholics around the world.

Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist and columnist. He wrote the introduction to Forbidden Truth.

Madsen can be reached at: WMadsen777@aol.com


alright, I forgot about the character limit.. heh.. oops..

the thing is i was curious as to anyones opinion on this.. look I'm not christian or anything like it, I'm just kinda nervous that the fervour that takes the anti-abortion clinic types get's them aimed in his direction.. things could get ugly fast and as much as I may think bush is a halfwhit bastard.. doesn't mean I want to see him get 'capped' to use the vernacular.. the thing is that if the pope starts worrying about you.. there could be even a greater divide in this country.. which we really really don't need right now..

thanks

This kind of brain-dead propaganda IS religious fervor. That's all it is. And I'm this close to voting for the man just to counteract all the propaganda at this point. It makes me ill.

Aw, you mean you think "blood cult" isn't a loaded phrase? I'm sure this "journalist" thought long and hard to choose a very neutral, unbiased term.:rolleyes:

I have a great book on apocalypse prophecy, and one of the things it does is catalogue everyone in history who gained a significant enough reputation as perhaps being the anti-Christ. It's called "And Time Shall Be No More," really fascinating stuff.

And Rush Limbaugh is a saint? Where do you think Rush Limbaugh and other talk radio hosts get their talking point from - daily? Propaganda is called Pravda in the old Soviet Union and Rush Limbaugh in the US. Where is equal oppurtunity? Why is Rush Limbaugh's 'lying by telling half truths' not listed side by side with all other brain-dead propaganda. The difference. Rush Limbaugh, et al get their agenda faxed to them by the current president. Rush Limbaugh does it daily. Rush Limbaugh is very rich because he is so good at promoting this administartion's brain-dead propaganda - daily. All others who only do it part time are wrong?

It's alright for god's choosen president to promote propaganda and other lies. But hell onto anyone else who might do same. Michael Moore has inaccuracies in his movie because that is the new acceptable standard created by right wing extremists, daily, on talk radio. So we criticize Moore for doing it once but don't criticism Limbaugh who does it daily? Double standard - especially when Limbaugh's propaganda is the current administration.

What is more offensive? Women bragging about sex with animals on Howard Stern, or Rush Limbaugh telling us that aluminum tubes are for weapons of mass destruction? The emotional among us fear the irrelevant sex and tits on the radio - even though we don't have to tune into that station. The logical see Rush Limbaugh types as immoral and perverted - and just ignore the fool. Howard Stern is mindless entertainment. Rush Limbaugh is doing exactly what Hilter advocates in his book Mein kampf. But if some other politcal agenda does the same thing, then they are wrong and evil? Its called a double standard.

Where's the propaganda, UT? Bush does believe he's on some mission from God. Reputable sources have directly quoted him making statements to that effect and the White House has never demanded that these quotes be retracted. Statistics are statistics. An inordinate number of prisoners were put to death when Bush was govener of Texas. Many innocents have been killed in the Middle East and never has our "good, Christian" president offered so much as a single word of condolence to their families. Bush did take the rich boy, coward's way out during the Vietnam era, joining but never serving in the National Guard. He didn't want to go to war himself, but he didn't have the guts to join the protesters in the streets. From the perspective of both the left and the right, Bush's actions (or lack there-of) during Vietnam were cowardly. Now you want to give the bastard your vote because you feel sorry for him that the press is telling the truth about him? Jeeez!:rolleyes:

Well, for example, an inordinate number of prisoners were put to death in Texas while Bush was Governor. However, the Governor of Texas does not have the ability to do much more than postpone executions for a short period of time, like a single 45 day postponement. It's the judges and juries that were really responsible for that increase. But hey, as long as we can pin it on the "bad guy"... no foul?

Family condolences, were you aware that Bush regularly visits the wounded soldiers - so regularly that some of them have spoken with him four times, with personal attention? The administration doesn't draw attention to this and the press generally doesn't either.

The point here is not to defend the guy, but to get the criticism right and not just propagandize. Dislike his administration for the right reasons.

Where's the propaganda???

Prove that. Or any one of the many other assumptions...

What crap.

" Texas did not sign the Vienna Convention, so why should we be subject to it ? "
Statement from the office of then Texas Govener George W. Bush when questioned regarding his stance on international law and the international community in regard to the death penalty.
:rolleyes:

Ok Mari, how about the fact that the article goes on and on about the pope's opinion of Bush, and how the pope "knows evil when he sees it"--when in fact the pope is pretty pissed off at Kerry too, and with most American politicians I'd bet. What the pope thinks is irrelevant to an unbiased news article about politics--except that's not what this is. This is a piece asserting all the different ways Bush has proven he secretly belongs to a "blood cult," whatever the fuck that is, and then concluding with the statement that he's the anti-Christ.

Sprinkling a few facts in for good measure doesn't make it not-propaganda.

I love it. Bush is the anti-Christ.

A’ight cow, I'm calling you out. I've seen this shit too many times on the Cellar, where somebody just links an article, and when they get called on poorly substantiated opinion in the piece, they cop it with the plea that "I didn't say it, it's this guy who writes it." I'm putting ya'll on notice. Pasted without comment is as good as stated.

Give me the backup on the anti-Christ. You stated that, "Bush's blood lust, his repeated commitment to Christian beliefs, and his constant references to "evil doers," in the eyes of many devout Catholic leaders, bear all the hallmarks of the one warned about in the Book of Revelations - the anti-Christ." [BTW, it’s Revelation – singular, not plural]

Let's start off easy. How about you just point me to the place in Revelation where it talks about the anti-Christ. Once you’ve done that, give me a really simple list of the identifying events that mark him. Make sure that you keep your characters straight - there's an anti-Christ, a Beast, the servant of the Beast, the seven kings, and the prince. We wouldn’t want to get our prophecies tangled.

Then, when you've listed the identifying markers for the anti-Christ, let's do a simple crosscheck with the apocalyptic literature of Daniel, Ezekiel, and Isaiah, for starters. We’ll leave out the non-canonical sources, because I don’t want you to have to make an extra trip to the local college library JUST to find source material. Let’s make sure that we understand the identifying events, and whether they might be references to previous apocalyptic themes, or are intended as unique prophetic pronouncements. Maybe then we can start trying to link up the identifying events with actual historical occurrences, and see if we can paint the big “A-C” on someone’s chest.

You get my point. Calling somebody the “anti-Christ, as prophesied in them there Revelations” is the biggest red herring the world. It’s easy to do, because so few people take the time to understand the book, and even fewer would claim to know how to correlate the prophetic identifiers with actual historical events. You bank on the fact that nobodies going to call you out, and make you back it up.

Well, I happened to have some extra time today, and when you make absurd claims about biblical apocalyptic literature, you’re pissing in my pool, ‘cause one of us has done his homework.

-sm

Can you tell me please, what the Vienna Convention has to do with the death penalty? Maybe I'm looking at the wrong Vienna Convention....

http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/treatfra.htm
http://www.unog.ch/archives/vienna/vien_69.htm
http://www.unep.org/ozone/viennaconvention2002.pdf

It looks like the Vienna Convention describes the application of other treaties. There probably was another treaty which involved the death penalty that was made applicable under Vienna.

Well, first of all you have to remember who made the statement. I'm surprised that shrubbie even knew there was such a thing as the Vienna Convention, and I'd be amazed if he actually knew what the contents of that document consisted of. He made that statement in response to the outcry by international human rights groups over the number of executions taking place in Texas while he was in the role of govener of that state. He may have been thinking (if Bush can be described as capable of thought) of the following sentence near the beginning of that document:

"Having in mind the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, such as the principles of the equal rights and self-determination of peoples, of the sovereign equality and independence of all States, of non-interference in the domestic affairs of States, of the prohibition of the threat or use of force and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all."

Don't ask me to explain the twisted workings of the man's fevered brain.:confused:

sorry, mari - i've reread your post a couple of times and i still can't get anything out of it except that you hate the very ground that GWB stands on. you often have good arguments but i think you are getting so wrapped up in your disdane for the man that your arguments become garbled.

i don't remember it verbatim but i heard a quote once that i really liked. it was along the lines of:

"i cannot hear what you say over the noise of who you are"
do any of you well read cellarites know what the statement really is and who made it?

Well, the provided quote was:All the rest of these posts have been guesses as to the context,. But it is not necessary to know the context to realise that the stattement is legally incorrect on its face. Texas does not sign any treaties - the US does. If the US signs a treaty, then Texas is subject to it.

In other words, it's a stupid statement, however it is connected to the death penalty.

Come on TW. But Georgie and Rush, started it.:rolleyes: Christ, I know you can do better than that.
Oh,...I get it,....two wrongs make a right. Or was that three lefts?

Sorry, that I didn't make myself more clear. Let me try again. When international human rights groups attacked then Texas govener, George Bush, about the number of executions in his state, Bush replied, " Texas did not sign the Vienna Convention, so why should we be subject to it ? "

I posted this quote as an example of both Bush's apparent indifference to international opinion and his lack of understanding of international treaties and law. The remark was obviously inane, because the Vienna Convention did not especially apply to the subject under discussion whether applied to Texas or the United States. The Vienna Convention does not specifically address the rights of prisoners except possibly in the one broad statement which I quoted, "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all."

If Bush was not replying within the context of that statement, he may possibly have been mixing the Vienna Convention up with the Geneva Convention. Either way, it is an incredibly ignorant response since the Geneva Conventions have to do with the treatment of prisoners of war and the people executed did not have that status.

Perhaps Bush felt he had to answer international criticism with some referral to international law, however ill informed it turned out to be.

whoa! mr (ms?/mrs.?). moniker, I did put my own little two cents worth in, I am not that familiar with the bible or the bulk of christianity, i asked at the bottom of the second part, what you people thought of it.. that's all I'm looking for other opinions, perhaps some that are more well grounded in theology than i have an understanding of.. I mean if you really want I'll happily research it and get back to your points..( which is something I had planned to do anyway... ).. just give me a few days. (i'm not just trying to stir up sh*t, I don't know what to think... and I'm trying to form an opinion on the matter)

I'd bet real money, that response was to a reporters question about why Bush/Texas didn't honor the Vienna Convention, or something like that. I don't believe he brought it up initially as an explanation, that's just not his style.
Ah, the danger of the 10 second sound bite (byte?).;)

While I cannot find any reference to the statement in any main stream pub, here are some tidbits with sources noted. I included both since each has a unique and important detail.

From Texas to Abu Ghraib: The Bush Legacy of Prisoner Abuse What Kind of America Does Bush Know?

History's greatest villains were often great speakers. Bush's obtuse illiteracy should not be taken as proof of his incompetance or 'evilness' - we can only judge this on his actions. Let us put aside our ill-informed media-led opinions about motive and circumstance.

It is FACT that he ordered record executions as governor of Texas. It is FACT that he ordered America's soldiers to die and to kill in Iraq.

That he embodies the Anti Christ, possesses 'blood lust' or represents evil itself is religious fervour and propaganda.

To condemn the administration, on the basis of the above irrefutable actions, is democracy.

Catwoman, I'm no fan of Bush, but to be clear, he didn't order any executions in Texas. All those who were excecuted had their day in court in front of a judge and jury. Bush had the opportunity to stay the executions, and chose not to. Instead he mocked those who pleaded for thier lives. He's an ass, but he didn't order any executions.

I see your point, glatt, but wouldn't you agree that for him to do nothing (and then ridicule) is equally as diabolic as if he had ordered the profligate killings?

I would agree with that, yes.

The Governor of Texas can issue one single 30-day reprieve per inmate.

Keep your facts to yourself sir, this is an ideological argument.

I don't think mocking death row inmates is very polite but let's remember that we are talking about bloodthirsty murderers who, in all likelihood mocked their victims pleas for mercy.

Moving on to the general question of executions in Texas, its a knife in my gut when I hear folks fall for this "I found Jesus last week so let me out of jail/off the hook, please" crap (Carla Faye Tucker, et al).

152± people knew before they picked up the knife or gun or whatever that if they get caught, Texas will kill them yet they killed.

You don't know that - can we stick to the facts?


Beestie please refer to the death penalty thread for information on a murderer's capacity for rationality in light of potential punishment.

You don't know that - can we stick to the facts?

Actually, we do know that--in the case of Carla Faye Tucker, she openly admitted that she was laughing gleefully as she hacked one particular man to death with a pickaxe, and furthermore claimed to the end that she had an orgasm each time the pick went in.

I've made fun of the woman before, and I'll make fun of her again. Her "conversion" was 100% pure publicity stunt.

And the other 151?

He didn't mock the other 151.

No, I meant you don't know that the other 151 mocked their victims.

I know what you meant. I just think we've hit a wall in this discussion. The other 151 were convicted by a jury of their peers and sentenced to death.

Your original point requires that Bush had a role in the 152 executions. My point is that he had NO role - commuting a death sentence requires a finding of a) a flaw in the judicial process or b) new evidence (DNA or new witness, etc.) that exonerates the convicted. The only thing that happened in the CFT case was her so-called religious conversion. Had GWB commuted the sentence of an unpopular male serial rapist/murderer on the basis of his pre-execution religious conversion, folks would be accusing him of carving out exceptions for like-minded Christians and of thumbing his nose at the legal system.

Carla Faye Tucker through her phony conversion played the media like a violin and many people swallowed (and, apparently, are still swallowing) the hook. Don't feel bad, tho, she fooled a lot of other people too - some of whom are in little peices now.

Why is that diabolic? to ridicule them in a situation where it could be reported, if true, is just plain stupid. to the surprise of very few in here id on't see what the big deal is about the record number of executions. if they all had trials, were convicted, had a chance for appeal, etc. they paid their sentence.

I am not concerned about the individual matter of CFT. I don't know enough about it, and as I am vehemently opposed to the death penalty I don't think she should have died regardless of religious conviction. But that is irrelevant.

GWB presided over 152 killings. His lack of preventative action indicates approval and allowance.

And lookout, if a record number of executions goes unnoticed and unquestioned, what kind of democracy do we live in? Surely it is better to renounce Bush for his over-zealousness in authorising these executions (which by his lack of veto, he has done) than to simply assume the jury was right in all cases?

I don't think her conversion was phony at all. Prison, and death row especially I would imagine, is a pretty popular place to find Jesus.

tex watson, one of the sharon tate murderers, became a christian and actually led a prison ministry for a very long time, but i don't think he ever tried to use "his change" to get out of prison.

Surely it is better to renounce Bush for his over-zealousness in authorising these executions (which by his lack of veto, he has done) than to simply assume the jury was right in all cases?

Look, he doesn't have that power of veto. Most of the people executed were convicted before he was even governor, they just happened to exhaust their appeals process while he was in office.

You sound like what you really expected of him was work to change the law and abolish the death penalty in Texas (which is the only way he could theoretically have stopped these executions.) Which obviously he isn't going to do because he supports the death penalty. Condemn him for the fact that he's pro-DP, if that's what you'd like to do, but the fact that more executions took place than normal is completely and totally separate from him and irrelevant.

If I was governor of a state, and people came up for pardon in front of me for the death penalty, and there is no new evidence or faulty legal procedure, I would surpass Dub's record. I wouldn't mock them (publicly), but that's just courtesy.

I am Pro-DP, and have no problem executing people who have been found guilty by a jury, and sentenced to death by the society the flaunted and inflicted stress upon, both by their actions and economically.

I agree Dub is a backward fella, but if someone breaks a law and gets the DP, then fry them. Justice includes punishment for the breaking of laws. *shrug*


Edit to add: Our Justice system may not be perfect, but it's all we got.

In a curious sidebar, Son of Sam who terrorize NYC nightlife and murdered numerous young people was up for parole. He was not sentenced to death. But he refused parole saying someone like him should never be allowed out of prison considering what he had done.

No, it's not lack of courtesy, it callousness. When murderers are sentenced, the jury looks for words or actions that show some sense of remorse or the existence of a conscience. The ones you don't want walking on the street are the ones who show no emotions or mock their victims.

GWB was enforcing the law. He had the right and duty as he saw fit. However, if he really did as he was accused and mocked the woman whose execution he approved, then that shows he does not have the capacity to understand the consequences of his actions.

If that account is true, and unless there was some extenuating circumstance like shock or extreme grief, then the man was behaving like a sociopath.

BTW, I would like to see some additional confirmation of that incident. Was there video?

Not a video, but you can get the picture and quote here:

http://www.ccadp.org/bushkills.htm

Technical point: According to Texas law, the govener CAN commute a sentence of death unless expressly prevented from doing so by the Texas Board of Parole in an individual case. I can find no statistic on how many of those cases in which GW Jr. had that option. He might have been able to commute every single one of them - or none. The fact remains that he publicly ridiculed a condemned woman's plea for clemency. Whether you believe in the death penalty or not, I would hope that you believe justice be given out impartially. Ridicule does not befit the govener of one of our States, much less the President of our Country; nor does it add to the respect due our system of justice. Bush's show of persuing his lips and imitating the prisoner made a mockery of our system by its very act.

I condemn GWB for being pro-death.

Bush appears to be about as mentally balanced as a spinning top, if not for his family he'd be a homeless drunk by now. Considering the black & white view of the world he is such a proponant of his lack of compassion and sociopathic tendancies should be of no surprise to anyone. Morrissey has the right idea, remote lime pit and a couple of rounds and the world would be a safer place.

I've missed you jag. :)

To Beestie (see above) and SmoothMoniker (in re: antichrist post):

:thumpsup: :beer:

Right on.


Sidhe

As true as that may, or may not, be, Bush isn't the only one.

The problem with politics is the politicians. It's endemic, there is no cure short of, how would you put it, policide is the wrong word, there has to be a word for killing all of the politicians.

(rant)If you try to evade capture or cover up a crime, it shows consciousness of guilt, and therefore, a rational approach. Look how rational Ted Bundy was. Look how rational the Killer Clown was. If you make some kind of plan to lure your victim to a place safe for you, or a plan concerning how not to get caught, that shows rational thinking, and therefore, if you ARE caught, you deserve to pay the penalty. (/rant)

Course, you guys know how I feel about the DP....


Sidhe

I've always been dubious of the people who "Turn to <insert deity/religion here>" when things are bad.

All it means is that you've given up. It's one step short of suicide in my opinion.

TS I think the phrase you're looking for is 'a gift to humanity'. There are alot of scary people in power but you'd think, being the ;eader of hte free world and all the US could do better. I mean just look at the nutjob who thinks that rape can't lead to conception wh bush just put in the Surpreme court, or Ashcroft, there's a man with issues if I ever saw one.

District Court. Not even a circuit appeals court. Judge Holmes has about as much sway over constitutional law as a 2nd year law student at University of Phoenix.

The actual quote was, "conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami." He's not saying they don't occur. He's saying they represent a miniscule percentage of actual abortions performed. He later withdrew the remark and apologized for it: ""The articulation of that sentence reflects an insensitivity for which there is no excuse and for which I apologize."

Let's be sure our hyperbole doesn't slide over the line into outright propoganda, OK?

-sm

I was under the impression it was the supreme court, I was aware he had retracted the quote, he still said it. I'm fairly sure he meant to imply they didn't happen as well. I'm still wondering why I put an r in supreme. Orrin Hatch, one of the guys that backed him is the same one who spends most of his life on his knees in from the RIAA and MPAA, another prime candidate for retroactive abortion.

So you're fact checking goes through a rigorous "impression" filter, but you still feel pretty confident that you know what the guy meant?

I call horshit. Those who don't know the specifics of an event are precluded from drawing inferences from it.

-sm

How often does it snow in Miami?

Google turned this up:

"On January 19, 1977, Old Man Winter paid an unwelcomed visit to residents of Miami, Florida (yes, Florida, not Ohio) and brought along a surprise gift -- snow! For the first time in the history of the extreme south of Florida, snow danced through the air and dusted the ground briefly. A quarter century later, the scene has not been repeated."

http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weathe...2/alm02jan.htm

It seems that jaguar's inference is pretty reasonable.

I must agree. I'm surprised to hear there was even a single recorded instance of snow in Miami. "Snow in Miami" is the equivalent of a "snowball's chance in hell."

Bush's biggest problem is that he introduces his religion into everything he does. If he had just managed Texas like a good administrator should, and then did the same for the whole US, without constantly tying his Christianity into it, he would have eliminated at least 50 percent of the criticism he receives. By bringing religion into the equation he alienates both the atheists/agnostics, and those Christians who believe in the separation of religion and state.

In my opinion the whole debate on the death penalty gets sidetracked every time. I think we should look at the question in a clinical way. If a person commits premeditated murder, and the evidence against them is solid, and overwhelming, they should be removed from our society in exactly the same manner as you would put down a rabid dog. I used to believe that it would also save us money, as opposed to having to support the murderer in prison for the remainder of his, or her life, but I have been assured that in fact it is cheaper to keep them in prison, than to execute them (see here).

The problem I have with the death penalty is that innocent people do get executed, and also if you are wealthy and well connected, you can get off (look at OJ for example). If we can't do it in a fair, and even handed way, we should not be doing it at all. It should not be necessary to bring religion, morality, or Bush's intelligence into the argument.