The Brits and the USA

by whitbyforklift Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:21 pm

First topic message reminder :

The only difference between us and our best friends across the pond is the words we and they say about the same thing.
For example we say boot they say trunk/we say bonnet,they say hood/we say rubber,they say eraser/we say negotiate they say BOMB THE B.......S. :afraid:

by oftenwrong Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:34 pm

It's the same bathos people use when offended by some Official, and the "Hitler" word comes out.

Like Peter and the wolf, it rapidly becomes devalued.

by **Phil Hornby** Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:33 pm

" ...and the "Hitler" word comes out."

And often pre-fixed by 'little', just to add an extra layer of insult.

Having said that, it was odd to see those Traffic Wardens goose-stepping down the High Street... Shocked

by bambu Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:27 pm

Shirina wrote:
Oh so much like Auschwitz.
I think that kind of comparison is a bit excessive.

#####

Auschwitz:

The state homicided in death chamber people it convicted.
Premeditated, and in cold blood.
Convicteds put in death chamber alive, came out dead.

Texas, Asia etc;

People convicted by the state, put in death chamber alive by the state, homicided in cold blood, premeditated, ...come out dead.

It sure looks the same to me.

by trevorw2539 Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:38 pm

Bambu quote.

The people in Auschwitz had no luxury of a trial. They were simply human beings (the jews) that Hitler despised, as he blamed their grip on the financial side of the German economy as part of Germany's problems.

by Shirina Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:43 pm

It sure looks the same to me.

Simply because "the state" killed people does not make it the same. By your comparison, if a state sends its soldiers off to war and some of them die, well, that must be just like Auschwitz, too.

I'm not here to defend or condemn the death penalty here in America. I'm merely pointing out that spurious correlations designed to manipulate the emotions of the reader - such as Auschwitz comparisons - don't inspire belief.

Now, if you could say that ordinary Americans were being rounded up by the millions and executed simply because of their religious beliefs, then you might have something. But you don't.

by trevorw2539 Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:53 pm

Shirina quote

Now, if you could say that ordinary Americans were being rounded up by the millions and executed simply because of their religious beliefs, then you might have something.

You wish. Wink

by oftenwrong Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:01 pm

The Brits and the USA are separated by 3000 miles of salty water. But not all of the loonies are on the same side of it.

by bambu Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:24 am

trevorw2539 wrote:Bambu quote.

The people in Auschwitz had no luxury of a trial. They were simply human beings (the jews) that Hitler despised, as he blamed their grip on the financial side of the German economy as part of Germany's problems.

At any trial they would've been found guilty, and no doubt sentenced to death...for breaking the laws of Germany [at the time]..."treason" or some such charge.
US, Huckabee and other politicians, want Aussie Julian Assange execution-homicided in their death chamber for releasing the WikiLeaks cables.

Same as Iran hangs homosexuals from cranes...for breaking the laws of Iran.

The Jews were not innocent, according to the Nazi German govt...the state.

Texas, other US states, Asia, Middle East et al...should stop execution-homiciding people they convict of breaking their laws.
One, it's human rights abuse.
Two, the 6th Commandment.
Three, it's barbaric.
Four, innocent people could be put to death.

Sydney Australia...yesterday...11am news on the no1 radio station www.2gb.com ...

"The number of countries sentencing people to death has fallen by 30% in the last decade" Smile

by bambu Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:49 am

Shirina wrote:
It sure looks the same to me.
Simply because "the state" killed people does not make it the same. By your comparison, if a state sends its soldiers off to war and some of them die, well, that must be just like Auschwitz, too.

I'm not here to defend or condemn the death penalty here in America. I'm merely pointing out that spurious correlations designed to manipulate the emotions of the reader - such as Auschwitz comparisons - don't inspire belief.

Now, if you could say that ordinary Americans were being rounded up by the millions and executed simply because of their religious beliefs, then you might have something. But you don't.

I have something;

Texas' execution-homiciding of 'beasts' makes it a 'beast', a killer in cold blood, the same as the 'beasts' it puts to death.

Auschwitz, Huntsville, an Indonesian island, a Malaysian prison ...all the death chambers are the 'same'...the state's killing factories.

Whether Hoess tallying up the executed-dead, a clerk at Huntsville, an Indonesian official...it's all the same.

by Shirina Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:31 am

Whether Hoess tallying up the executed-dead, a clerk at Huntsville, an Indonesian official...it's all the same.

Perhaps you should find the nearest Holocaust survivor and ask him/her whether it is the same.

by ROB Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:25 am

bambu wrote:
Texas' execution-homiciding of 'beasts' makes it a 'beast'…

Nope.

bambu wrote:
… a killer in cold blood…

Nope.

bambu wrote:
… the same as the 'beasts' it puts to death.

Nope.

bambu wrote:
Auschwitz, Huntsville…

… are two cities. That’s about it for “sameness.”

bambu wrote:
… the state's killing factories….

That would be Auschwitz.

bambu wrote:
Whether Hoess tallying up the executed-dead, a clerk at Huntsville, an Indonesian official...it's all the same.

Not to the dear lady of sixty-something years of age who showed me her tattoo in 1997.

by trevorw2539 Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:04 am

Bambu quote.

The Jews were not innocent, according to the Nazi German govt...the state.

The Jews were innocent. It was on the whim of one man, Hitler, that hatred for the Jews arose. As far back as 1919 he wrote that the Jews 'had survived by inbreeding and their love of money and wealth' - as near as I can remember the words.

by bambu Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:45 am

trevorw2539 wrote:Bambu quote.

The Jews were not innocent, according to the Nazi German govt...the state.

The Jews were innocent. It was on the whim of one man, Hitler, that hatred for the Jews arose. As far back as 1919 he wrote that the Jews 'had survived by inbreeding and their love of money and wealth' - as near as I can remember the words.

The Nazi German govt led by Hitler said they were guilty, enemies of the state, and killed them.

US politicians Huckabee and co have declared Aussie Julian Assange an enemy of the US state and he's likely to be led into the US death chamber and killed in cold blood if Sweden succeeds in having him extradited from the UK.
And it ain't 1943! and Hitler and the Nazis are no longer around, but the state's rooms of death, and executioners, are.

Maybe Huntsville could make up a carbon monoxide van and put Assange [and maybe young gay guy Manning] in there for extermination.
Those vans were popular with the Nazis.

Just goes to show why the US states must be made abolish death chambers.
Obama could do it if he wanted to, but he seems to be a fan of putting people to death.

About time he was voted out of office and a 6th Commandment-adhering to Christian elected in his place.

by oftenwrong Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:28 pm

Suddenly, euthanasia for religious nutters has come a little nearer.

by trevorw2539 Wed Mar 28, 2012 1:48 pm

The Nazi German govt led by Hitler said they were guilty, enemies of the state, and killed them.

So it's ok for a government to just say 'we don't like you you've got to die'. And then kill you. No Jew had the luxury of a trial. No Jew stood before a court to hear any accusations or even make a plea.

Maybe Huntsville could make up a carbon monoxide van and put Assange [and maybe young gay guy Manning] in there for extermination.
Those vans were popular with the Nazis.

So you align yourself with the ideals of the Nazi Government? Get rid of those we don't like without trial.

by oftenwrong Today at 12:28 pm

Suddenly, euthanasia for religious nutters has come a little nearer.

Seems like it, God help us. Shocked

Perhaps they would like to go back to Roman ways. Crucifixion. It is said that after the slaves rebellion, remember Spartacus, the Appian Way was lined with crucified slaves. Contrary to the film no-one knows what happened to Spartacus.

Ah well. That's me for the chop - erm - I mean the chops for my dinner. Smile

by Shirina Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:34 pm

The Nazi German govt led by Hitler said they were guilty, enemies of the state, and killed them.

You're confusing bad laws with bad sentencing. Jews were executed simply for existing, not because they were accused of committing a crime. They didn't even have to be practicing Jews. Simply being alive was all the reason Hitler needed to kill a Jew. That fact alone puts a vast distance between American capital punishment and Nazi death factories.

Julian Assange an enemy of the US state and he's likely to be led into the US death chamber

That's nonsense. Even convicted terrorists have not been put to death in this country so it is a long shot that someone like Assange would be executed. In fact, I'm not even certain if Assange is accused of a capital offense.

Obama could do it if he wanted to, but he seems to be a fan of putting people to death.

Obama is not a dictator with unlimited power, and there is the issue of states' rights. It was decided long ago that individual states choose whether or not to use the death penalty. In order to change that, there would have to be a Constitutional Amendment written and voted on. There have only been 27 successful amendments added to the Constitution in 235 years which gives you an inkling of just how hard it is to pass one. Obama cannot simply wave his hand and abolish capital punishment.

About time he was voted out of office and a 6th Commandment-adhering to Christian elected in his place.

America is not a theocracy, and I would leave this country if it ever became one. However, all of that aside, I think you fail to understand the nature of US political leanings. If you want to abolish the death penalty in this country, the LAST person you would want to elect is a Christian. By and large, Christians are conservative, and conservatives are overwhelmingly for the death penalty. Instead, you would want to vote in a flaming liberal as president as, by and large, liberals are against the death penalty, and a good number of them are atheists or agnostics.

by trevorw2539 Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:49 pm

Apologies for the double post. I'd either got the wrong glasses on, or I'm going mad. The latter is probable.

Come to that, do I like the sound of my own.............Nah:)

by Shirina Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:58 pm

Hello, Trevor:

No worries about the double post ... that sometimes happens, especially if you press the "send" button if you think your post is hanging and not posting right away. I deleted your second one to keep the board free of those little mistakes. Smile

by trevorw2539 Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:53 pm

by Shirina Today at 4:58 pm

Hello, Trevor:

No worries about the double post ... that sometimes happens, especially if you press the "send" button if you think your post is hanging and not posting right away. I deleted your second one to keep the board free of those little mistakes. Smile

Thanks.

by bambu Thu Mar 29, 2012 10:14 pm

Shirina wrote:
The Nazi German govt led by Hitler said they were guilty, enemies of the state, and killed them.
You're confusing bad laws with bad sentencing. Jews were executed simply for existing, not because they were accused of committing a crime. They didn't even have to be practicing Jews. Simply being alive was all the reason Hitler needed to kill a Jew. That fact alone puts a vast distance between American capital punishment and Nazi death factories.
Julian Assange an enemy of the US state and he's likely to be led into the US death chamber
That's nonsense. Even convicted terrorists have not been put to death in this country so it is a long shot that someone like Assange would be executed. In fact, I'm not even certain if Assange is accused of a capital offense.
Obama could do it if he wanted to, but he seems to be a fan of putting people to death.
Obama is not a dictator with unlimited power, and there is the issue of states' rights. It was decided long ago that individual states choose whether or not to use the death penalty. In order to change that, there would have to be a Constitutional Amendment written and voted on. There have only been 27 successful amendments added to the Constitution in 235 years which gives you an inkling of just how hard it is to pass one. Obama cannot simply wave his hand and abolish capital punishment.
About time he was voted out of office and a 6th Commandment-adhering to Christian elected in his place.
America is not a theocracy, and I would leave this country if it ever became one. However, all of that aside, I think you fail to understand the nature of US political leanings. If you want to abolish the death penalty in this country, the LAST person you would want to elect is a Christian. By and large, Christians are conservative, and conservatives are overwhelmingly for the death penalty. Instead, you would want to vote in a flaming liberal as president as, by and large, liberals are against the death penalty, and a good number of them are atheists or agnostics.

There are Christians in America against the execution-homiciding of human beings[in effect abolitionists]..IMO.
The Christians in favour of death sentences are only pretend Christians...and need waking up.

Obama could have death sentences abolished, if he wanted to.
He could urge the public.
He could penalise states that wouldn't do what he asked.

Instead, he does nothing, in fact supports death sentences.
The modern West doesn't need Presidents like him.

by bambu Thu Mar 29, 2012 10:25 pm

[quote="Shirina"]

Julian Assange an enemy of the US state and he's likely to be led into the US death chamber
That's nonsense.

No nonsense, US politicians are dead serious.

http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/162315-huckabee-calls-execution-julian-assange.html

Just as american politicians want Bradley Manning executed because he revealed crimes of the US government, they want Julian Assange executed. In the past few days the more notorious of the dumb(*)(*)(*)(*)s that sit in the US Congress have denounced Assange as a “traitor to america.” What total ignorance. Assange is an Australian, not an american citizen. To be a traitor to america, one has to be of the nationality. An Australilian cannot be a traitor to america any more than an american can be a traitor to Australia. But don’t expect the morons who represent the lobbyists to know this much.

Mike Huckabee, the redneck baptist preacher who was governor of arkansas and, to
america’s already overwhelming shame, was third runner up to the Republican presidential nomination, has called for Assange’s execution. So here we have a “man of God” calling for the US government to murder an Australian citizen.

by oftenwrong Thu Mar 29, 2012 10:52 pm

Interesting to speculate upon the inner thoughts of a Christian in America who finds themselves about to meet their Maker.

by bambu Fri Mar 30, 2012 9:23 pm

[quote="trevorw2539"]The Nazi German govt led by Hitler said they were guilty, enemies of the state, and killed them.

So it's ok for a government to just say 'we don't like you you've got to die'. And then kill you. No Jew had the luxury of a trial. No Jew stood before a court to hear any accusations or even make a plea.

Maybe Huntsville could make up a carbon monoxide van and put Assange [and maybe young gay guy Manning] in there for extermination.
Those vans were popular with the Nazis.

So you align yourself with the ideals of the Nazi Government? Get rid of those we don't like without trial.

[color=#000000]by oftenwrong Today at 12:28 pm

##### #####

Not ok, I'm just stating what happened.
___

Sarcasm.
Texas should not be putting anyone to death.

by **Ivan** Fri Mar 30, 2012 9:37 pm

Obama could have death sentences abolished, if he wanted to.

bambu. I hate the death penalty as much as anyone, but Shirina has already explained to you that Obama does not have the power to abolish it. The USA is not a dictatorship but a federal republic, where 50 states make many of their own laws. Even where a president does have the power to change things, he has to get the approval of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, which are often gridlocked.

I'm old enough to remember that the US Supreme Court imposed a moratorium on the 'cruel and unusual' nature of the death penalty from about 1967 to 1977, but again, that was nothing to do with any president.

by ROB Sat Mar 31, 2012 12:34 am

Ivan wrote:

Obama could have death sentences abolished, if he wanted to.
… Obama does not have the power to abolish [the death penalty]. The USA is… a federal republic, where 50 states make many of their own laws.

Enhancement and somewhat detailed explanation of this true statement:

The United States of America is a federal (from “federate”) republic (representative democracy) composed of fifty sovereign states that delegate some portions of their inherent sovereign powers to a central government, the federal government, of which Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is the forty-fourth elected president.

Article IV Section 4 of the United States Constitution states “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”; thus, each sovereign state is also a republic, a representative democracy.

As sovereign states with republican forms of governments, in other words, as sovereign republics, each state has sole authority to set punishments for crimes, subject only to the supreme law of each state individually and collectively, the Constitution of the United States of America.

Thus, the State of Texas, which recently executed two beasts with my wholehearted approval (one beast hooked up a man (bound at wrists and ankles) behind a pickup truck with a logging chain attached to his bound ankles and dragged him until his head was knocked from his body, the other beast escaped from prison with six other convicted criminals, robbed a hardware store, and murdered the lone responding police officer by running over the officer repeatedly with a motor vehicle) has sole authority to set and administer penalties for murder,

The State of Texas, in common with all fifty states, enacts laws through its state legislature that set penalties for murder. As the legislature of a sovereign state, the Texas State Legislature, in enacting laws which set penalties for murder in Texas, is beholden solely to We the People of the Sovereign State of Texas, and constrained only by the Texas State Constitution, by which it is singularly constrained, and the United States Constitution, which as one of the fifty United States it is both singularly and collectively (with the forty-nine other states) constrained._

Each resident of Texas possesses unalienable human rights guaranteed to her/him by the U.S. Constitution, some of which are enumerated within the Constitution, Amendment 8 of which states “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

In the latter sixties, all state death penalty laws were found to be cruel and/or unusual punishment. Two primary issues were resolved in revised death penalty laws passed in a number of states that meet the no cruel and unusual punishment test. One is that all death penalty laws now in force allow such punishment only for murder with special circumstances (a bit of over-simplification). The other is that all death penalty laws now in force require the death penalty to be administered without regard to “race”/ethnicity, color, gender, national origin, etc.

The President of the United States has neither part nor parcel in the enactment and administration of death penalty laws in any state. Additionally, as the United States Congress, not the President, enacts federal law, other than the veto, the President has neither part nor parcel in the enactment of federal death penalty laws

Ivan wrote:
Even where a president does have the power to change things, he has to get the approval of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, which are often gridlocked.

A president has no power to enact or change any law, state or federal. For instance, the Health Care Reform Act was enacted by Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate) and is being adjudicated by the United States Supreme Court. Save for signing rather than vetoing the bill, President Obama has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

by ROB Sat Mar 31, 2012 1:39 am

Additional information regarding Barack Hussein Obama Jr., as of 20 January 2009 12:00 Eastern Standard Time (17:00 GMT) forty-fourth President of the United States of America:

Prior to being elected President of the United States of America, United States Senator Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was a member of the most powerful legislative body in the world, the Senate of the Congress of the United States of America. In order to be inaugurated as president, Barack Obama was compelled to give up his eat and vote in the United States Senate, thus in a sense abdicating any and all legislative power, save for the veto, he might have possessed.

Unlike as is the case with the Westminster System, chiefs of the fifty-one executive branches of the fifty-one sovereign governments within the jurisdiction of the United States of America, the President of the United States (chief executive of the federal government) and the fifty state governors (chief executives of the fifty state governments), have no legislative powers whatsoever save for vetoes. In seeking to understand what President Obama can and cannot do, residents of countries wherein the Westminster System of government exist need to know and understand this difference.

by bambu Sat Mar 31, 2012 2:05 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
Ivan wrote:

Obama could have death sentences abolished, if he wanted to.
… Obama does not have the power to abolish [the death penalty]. The USA is… a federal republic, where 50 states make many of their own laws.
[color=black]
Enhancement and somewhat detailed explanation of this true statement:

The United States of America is a federal (from “federate”) republic (representative democracy) composed of fifty sovereign states that delegate some portions of their inherent sovereign powers to a central government, the federal government, of which Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is the forty-fourth elected president.

As is Australia...6 states two territories.
Just with a Monarch as Head of State....it's basically the same thing
...but the People soon had death penalty execution-homicides despatched to the dustbin of history.
The politicians capitulated eventually.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/the-death-of-ronald-ryan/2007/02/01/1169919473225.html

The hanging propelled me into involvement with the Labor Party as well. As a university student organising the campus protests in which students from across the political spectrum mounted a round-the-clock vigil on the steps of Parliament House in January 1967, I felt revulsion at the idea of such a coldblooded judicial killing. That feeling of disgust has never left me. Most present-day Australians who were teenagers or older in 1967 can tell you exactly where they were at 8am on February 3 in that year.

Grindlay [prison governor] was deeply affected by the execution and his health suffered badly because of it. A devout Catholic, he would say a prayer for Ryan every day of his life until his own death in 1984.

Mike Richards is author of The Hanged Man: The Life and Death of Ronald Ryan (Melbourne, Scribe, 2002), which won the Ned Kelly Prize in 2002, and was runner-up in the National Biography Award in 2003.

...whose sanctioned execution by the Victorian government of Liberal premier Sir Henry Bolte caused a firestorm of community opposition, the scale and intensity of which dwarfs most modern-day protests.

#####

We marched, the Cross and the noose our symbols.
It took a while, but we got em in the end. Smile

We can't be Ray Krone 'The snaggletooth killer' [innocent] or teen Black poor single mother Sabrina Butler [innocent] sitting on death row [in America] waiting for the day they'll be killed in cold blood by the state.
We marched for better, and won it.

American Christians and all Americans should realise what they're actually doing by endorsing the govt's death chambers...and have them abolished.

Obama could convince the People...he hasn't even tried.
...starting with those of his own race, he's a good orator, he could convince his own race [well he's as much White as he is Black...but he's labelled 'Black', 'wrongly'] to have a million man or million hoodie march in protest.

The People could convince the politicians...bye bye death chambers, all gone!

But Obama says nothing, as he's in favour of the premedited, cold-blooded killing of human beings in US death chambers...he's said so.
He promised to take America back to the [Human Rights] UN...he didn't.
So he has to go!
The People should vote him out.

by Shirina Sat Mar 31, 2012 3:16 am

Obama could convince the People...he hasn't even tried.

Could he? Obama cannot convince the American people that health care should be a RIGHT! If he can't convince people that ordinary citizens deserve to be cured, he certainly can't convince the people that criminals don't deserve to be killed. That's not necessarily a slight against Obama, but more of an indictment against the opinion of tens of millions of Americans.

So he has to go!

And who would you put in his place? Romney? Santorm?!? Do you pay attention to US politics? No one is even running against Obama for the Democratic nomination, so if Obama goes, some right-wing lunatic will fill his shoes, and if anything, those people would increase the number of executions.

The People should vote him out.

No ... the people should do no such thing.

On Friday Piers Morgan sat down with GOP candidate Rick Santorum and his family for an in-depth interview in South Carolina. Santorum expressed his view on family, marriage and his hard line take on issues such as the death penalty. "When there is certainty, that's the case that capital punishment can be used," Santorum said. "If there is not certainty, under the law, it shouldn't be used."

Whoops, doesn't look like Rick Santorum is going to be abolishing the death penalty any time soon, yet electing him means we elect a president who doesn't even believe in the separation of church and state. No thanks, I'll pass on living in a theocracy.

"I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state are absolute," [Rick Santorum] told 'This Week' host George Stephanopoulos. "The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country...to say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes me want to throw up."

LINK LINK

How about Mitt Romney?

“From my perspective, there are two main camps when it comes to the death penalty. On one side, there are some people who believe there are certain crimes that are so offensive… so reprehensible…. so far beyond the bounds of civilized society that they demand the ultimate punishment. In the other camp are well-meaning people who believe that it is immoral for government to ever take a life. In the middle, I believe, are others who could support the death penalty if it is narrowly applied and contains the appropriate safeguards. It is with that group in mind that we have brought forward the death penalty bill before you today…

Oh dear. Well, it doesn't look like Romney will be abolishing it, either.

LINK

And Newt Gingrich?

Over the weekend, struggling Republican presidential candidate Gary Johnson reminded MSNBC viewers that GOP frontrunner Newt Gingrich had once to called to punish some drug offenders with death.

Nope. Looks like Gingrich would merely expand the types of crimes one can be executed for!

LINK

So when you tell the people that we should vote Obama out, you don't seem to have a realistic option as to whom we should vote in. Note: People who aren't actually running for president don't count.

by ROB Sat Mar 31, 2012 3:59 am

bambu wrote:
RockOnBrother wrote:
Ivan wrote:

Obama could have death sentences abolished, if he wanted to.
… Obama does not have the power to abolish [the death penalty]. The USA is… a federal republic, where 50 states make many of their own laws.
Enhancement and somewhat detailed explanation of this true statement:

The United States of America is a federal (from “federate”) republic (representative democracy) composed of fifty sovereign states that delegate some portions of their inherent sovereign powers to a central government, the federal government, of which Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is the forty-fourth elected president.
As is Australia...6 states two territories.
Just with a Monarch as Head of State....it's basically the same thing

No it’s not exactly the same thing. There are similarities and differences.

Australia is a federal republic, as is the US. Each of its states, Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, and Tasmania, are sovereign, as are the fifty states of the US. Each of the six states has a republican form of government, as do each of the fifty states of the US. Australia has a federal government to which the several states have delegated certain portions of their inherent sovereign power, as does the US.

Now for the differences. The seven sovereign governments of Australia have Westminster systems of government. Australia has seven chief executives, chiefs of government, who are the prime ministers of their cabinets (called “premiers” in the six states, if memory serves), who are not chiefs of state. Queen Elizabeth II is Chief of State; her six state governors and her Governor General of Australia are here representatives within the seven Westminster systems of government, wielding her authority in her physical absence.

In contrast, the fifty-one sovereign governments of the US each have an elected chief of state that is also the elected chief of government, in the case of the state governments, the fifty governors, and in the case of the federal government, the President of the United States. No Queen.

Also, unlike Australia’s premiers and prime minister, the governors and president in the United States, save for vetoes, have no legislative power whatsoever in their respective governments. That’s a trait of the Westminster system. Accordingly, neither the governors nor the president can introduce legislation, debate upon legislation, vote on legislation, or participate in enacting legislation save for vetoes. Their vetoes, their sole legislative power, allow them to reject legislation already passed, if such legislation did not receive two thirds vote of each house when passed. Vetoes can thus be overridden by two thirds vote of each house of the legislature in which it was passed, whether within one of the fifty state legislatures or within the Congress of the United States.

bambu wrote:
...but the People soon had death penalty execution-homicides despatched to the dustbin of history.

Death penalties have not been “dispatched to the dustbin of history.” We executed two beasts in Texas within the past two calendar years. The world is better off without their vile presences thereon.

bambu wrote:
We can't be Ray Krone 'The snaggletooth killer' [innocent] or teen Black poor single mother Sabrina Butler [innocent] sitting on death row [in America] waiting for the day they'll be killed in cold blood by the state.

Innocence is not the core issue. The two beasts of whom I speak are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt unto a moral certainty.

They were put to death by lethal injection. When we put a pet (or any animal) down by lethal injection, we call it euthanasia.

bambu wrote:
American Christians and all Americans should realise what they're actually doing by endorsing the govt's death chambers...and have them abolished.

I’m glad that you brought that up. “Christian” means one who follows the teachings and commandments of Y’shua bar Yosef, Y’shua Moshiach, Jesus son of Joseph, Jesus the Christ. Here is one of Jesus’ teachings:

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is fulfilled. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Y’shua bar Yosef, recorded in Matthew 5:17-19).

Here is the Law:

“Whosoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God He made man” (YHVH Elohim, recorded in Genesis 9:6).

As a Christian (sometimes), it is my voluntary duty to support death penalty laws that shed the blood of those who shed man’s blood.

bambu wrote:
Obama could convince the People…

Obama can’t convince me to stand in opposition to Jesus’ teaching. I am an integral part of We the People of the United States of America.

bambu wrote:
… he hasn't even tried.

It’s not his job to try. Barack Obama is not a member of the Texas State Legislature.

bambu wrote:
… starting with those of his own race…

My friend, “race” is a myth, so who are those “of his own race” with whom you say he could start?

by oftenwrong Sat Mar 31, 2012 7:33 pm

Residents of a Country have little experience of how it feels to be a foreigner seeking entry to that Country, so rarely complain about the treatment of aliens at airports.

Now the American "Homeland Security" laws extend their tentacles way beyond the confines of the Fifty States. Any air passenger planning to fly to MEXICO, CUBA, or Eastern CANADA has to be identified by the airline 72 hours in advance to the US Homeland Security, who reserve the right to deny boarding, even to those who are not going to the USA anyway.

Paranoid? Can't be paranoia if everyone really does hate you.

by Shirina Sat Mar 31, 2012 7:41 pm

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

Does that mean we should be stocking up on oxen and goats to sacrifice to God? I'm not sure how that will work with the SPCA and PETA lurking about. No one will be able to say, "No animals were harmed during the filming of this burnt offering."

Does it also mean that we should bring stoning back as a legitimate form of punishment? And does it mean the average citizen must throw those stones in the town square? How about slavery?

by ROB Sat Mar 31, 2012 10:18 pm

Shirina wrote:

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
Does that mean we should be stocking up on oxen and goats to sacrifice to God?

No.

Shirina wrote:
Does it also mean that we should bring stoning back as a legitimate form of punishment?

No.

Shirina wrote:
And does it mean the average citizen must throw those stones in the town square?

No.

Shirina wrote:
How about slavery?

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise” (Galatians 3:28-29).

by bambu Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:57 pm

- RockOnBrother

Here is the Law:

“Whosoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God He made man” (YHVH Elohim, recorded in Genesis 9:6).

As a Christian (sometimes), it is my voluntary duty to support death penalty laws that shed the blood of those who shed man’s blood.

##### #####

6th Commandment; "Thou shalt not kill/Thou shalt do no murder"

Death penalty executions are cold blooded killing...and classed as premeditated, cold blooded murder by many people.

It's your duty to follow the Ten Commandments ...and...have abolished a system that execution-homicides innocent people and causes other innocent people unlimited terror as they wait to be wrongly put to death.

Besides that, death chambers are in violation of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

...and are not civilised...but are barbaric in this day and age.

by ROB Mon Apr 02, 2012 6:03 am

bambu wrote:
6th Commandment; "Thou shalt not kill/Thou shalt do no murder"

The Law, prohibition of murder (“shall not”):

“You shall not murder¹” (YHVH Elohim, recorded in Exodus 20:13).

Hebrew râtsach, to murder.

The Law, penalty for murder (“shall”):

“Whosoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God He made man” (YHVH Elohim, recorded in Genesis 9:6).

by bambu Mon Apr 02, 2012 11:11 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
bambu wrote:
6th Commandment; "Thou shalt not kill/Thou shalt do no murder"

The Law, prohibition of murder (“shall not”):

“You shall not murder¹” (YHVH Elohim, recorded in Exodus 20:13).

Hebrew râtsach, to murder.

The Law, penalty for murder (“shall”):

“Whosoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God He made man” (YHVH Elohim, recorded in Genesis 9:6).

Lethal injection execution-homicides are not 'shedding blood'...so to fulfil the Gospel you should be beheading the convicteds instead.

by ROB Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:43 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
bambu wrote:
6th Commandment; "Thou shalt not kill/Thou shalt do no murder"
The Law, prohibition of murder (“shall not”):

“You shall not murder¹” (YHVH Elohim, recorded in Exodus 20:13).

Hebrew râtsach, to murder.

The Law, penalty for murder (“shall”):

“Whosoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God He made man” (YHVH Elohim, recorded in Genesis 9:6).

bambu wrote:
Lethal injection execution-homicides are not 'shedding blood'…

Executions of murderers are mandated by the Law (Genesis 9:6).

bambu wrote:
… so to fulfil the Gospel…

Jesus did not come to fulfill the Gospel; Jesus came to fulfill Torah, the Law.

bambu wrote:
… you should be beheading the convicteds instead.

That depends upon the details of the murder.

The blood of Lawrence Russell Brewer, executed 21 September 2011 for the abduction and murder of James Byrd Jr., should have been shed in the fashion you suggest.

Read…

“In the early morning of 7 June 1998 … [Lawrence Russell] Brewer… John King… [and] Shawn Berry… offered [James Byrd Jr.] a ride [in Berry’s]… pickup truck… The men drove to an isolated logging road… and… attacked Byrd, tied his feet with a logging chain, and attached the chain to the back of the truck. They then drove along Huff Creek Road, dragging Byrd behind the truck until he was dead. The body was found by townsfolk later that morning. It was missing the head, neck, and right arm… Police followed a trail of blood, drag marks, and body parts for about a mile and a half, culminating in an area of matted-down grass that appeared to have been the scene of a struggle. At this site and all along the asphalt road… police discovered clothing and personal items belonging to Byrd…” (Texas Execution Information Center. Retrieved 3 April 2012 from http://www.txexecutions.org/reports/475.asp).

Beheading would have been the appropriate way to shed Lawrence Russell Brewer’s blood. Brewer should have been attacked by three men, had his feet tied feet to the back of a pickup truck with a logging chain, and then dragged behind the truck until his head was snapped off and he was dead.

However, the blood of George Rivas, executed 29 February 2012 for murdering Irving police officer Aubrey Hawkins, should have been shed in another fashion.

Read…

“Irving police officer Aubrey Hawkins… was shot eleven times… with at least five different guns from at least three directions… and… died immediately. Some of the escapees pulled Hawkins' body from his police vehicle… [George] Rivas then ran over Hawkins in [a Ford0 Explorer [SUV], dragging his body approximately ten feet” (Texas Execution Information Center. Retrieved 3 April 2012 from http://www.txexecutions.org/reports/479.asp).

Beheading would have been the appropriate way to shed George Rivas’s blood. Rivas should have been shot eleven times from five different guns from three different directions, and then he should have been run over by an SUV.

I prefer Ol’ Sparky.

by bambu Tue Apr 03, 2012 5:51 am

[quote="RockOnBrother"]

RockOnBrother wrote:
I prefer Ol’ Sparky.

Thought you might. Smile

Major human rights abuse...as is all the cold-blooded killing by the state.
New Mexico is the latest US state to see the light.

We've moved on since the Old Testament...God has obviously changed his mind about homosexuals and killers...and also given us human rights wisdom.

by ROB Tue Apr 03, 2012 7:37 am

bambu wrote:
Major human rights abuse...as is all the cold-blooded killing by the state.

Incorrect.

Lawrence Russell Brewer and George Rivas committed “[major] human rights abuse” and “cold-blooded killing[s]”, as detailed below from my previous message…

RockOnBrother wrote:
The blood of Lawrence Russell Brewer, executed 21 September 2011 for the abduction and murder of James Byrd Jr., should have been shed in the fashion you suggest.

Read…

“In the early morning of 7 June 1998 … [Lawrence Russell] Brewer… John King… [and] Shawn Berry… offered [James Byrd Jr.] a ride [in Berry’s]… pickup truck… The men drove to an isolated logging road… and… attacked Byrd, tied his feet with a logging chain, and attached the chain to the back of the truck. They then drove along Huff Creek Road, dragging Byrd behind the truck until he was dead. The body was found by townsfolk later that morning. It was missing the head, neck, and right arm… Police followed a trail of blood, drag marks, and body parts for about a mile and a half, culminating in an area of matted-down grass that appeared to have been the scene of a struggle. At this site and all along the asphalt road… police discovered clothing and personal items belonging to Byrd…” (Texas Execution Information Center. Retrieved 3 April 2012 from http://www.txexecutions.org/reports/475.asp).
Beheading would have been the appropriate way to shed Lawrence Russell Brewer’s blood. Brewer should have been attacked by three men, had his feet tied to the back of a pickup truck with a logging chain, and then dragged behind the truck until his head was snapped off and he was dead.

However, the blood of George Rivas, executed 29 February 2012 for murdering Irving police officer Aubrey Hawkins, should have been shed in another fashion.

Read…

“Irving police officer Aubrey Hawkins… was shot eleven times… with at least five different guns from at least three directions… and… died immediately. Some of the escapees pulled Hawkins' body from his police vehicle… [George] Rivas then ran over Hawkins in [a Ford0 Explorer [SUV], dragging his body approximately ten feet” (Texas Execution Information Center. Retrieved 3 April 2012 from http://www.txexecutions.org/reports/479.asp).
Beheading would have been the appropriate way to shed George Rivas’s blood. Rivas should have been shot eleven times from five different guns from three different directions, and then he should have been run over by an SUV.

… violating the unalienable human rights of James Byrd Jr. and Aubrey Hawkins. The described punishments for these two beasts would have been fitting. Once again, unfortunately, I prefer Ol’ Sparky.

You can read about those unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Australia is signatory, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

bambu wrote:
We've moved on since the Old Testament...God has obviously changed his mind about homosexuals and killers...and also given us human rights wisdom.

You, not “we”, have “moved on.” We includes me, and I will move on as Jesus teaches. Jesus did not come to abolish the Law. Until he does, “Whosoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God He made man” (Genesis 9:6) is my guide.

by bambu Thu Apr 05, 2012 12:17 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
bambu wrote:
Major human rights abuse...as is all the cold-blooded killing by the state.

Incorrect.

Lawrence Russell Brewer and George Rivas committed “[major] human rights abuse” and “cold-blooded killing[s]”, as detailed below from my previous message…
RockOnBrother wrote:
The blood of Lawrence Russell Brewer, executed 21 September 2011 for the abduction and murder of James Byrd Jr., should have been shed in the fashion you suggest.

Read…

“In the early morning of 7 June 1998 … [Lawrence Russell] Brewer… John King… [and] Shawn Berry… offered [James Byrd Jr.] a ride [in Berry’s]… pickup truck… The men drove to an isolated logging road… and… attacked Byrd, tied his feet with a logging chain, and attached the chain to the back of the truck. They then drove along Huff Creek Road, dragging Byrd behind the truck until he was dead. The body was found by townsfolk later that morning. It was missing the head, neck, and right arm… Police followed a trail of blood, drag marks, and body parts for about a mile and a half, culminating in an area of matted-down grass that appeared to have been the scene of a struggle. At this site and all along the asphalt road… police discovered clothing and personal items belonging to Byrd…” (Texas Execution Information Center. Retrieved 3 April 2012 from http://www.txexecutions.org/reports/475.asp).
Beheading would have been the appropriate way to shed Lawrence Russell Brewer’s blood. Brewer should have been attacked by three men, had his feet tied feet to the back of a pickup truck with a logging chain, and then dragged behind the truck until his head was snapped off and he was dead.

However, the blood of George Rivas, executed 29 February 2012 for murdering Irving police officer Aubrey Hawkins, should have been shed in another fashion.

Read…

“Irving police officer Aubrey Hawkins… was shot eleven times… with at least five different guns from at least three directions… and… died immediately. Some of the escapees pulled Hawkins' body from his police vehicle… [George] Rivas then ran over Hawkins in [a Ford0 Explorer [SUV], dragging his body approximately ten feet” (Texas Execution Information Center. Retrieved 3 April 2012 from http://www.txexecutions.org/reports/479.asp).
Beheading would have been the appropriate way to shed George Rivas’s blood. Rivas should have been shot eleven times from five different guns from three different directions, and then he should have been run over by an SUV.
… violating the unalienable human rights of James Byrd Jr. and Alex Hawkins. The described punishments for these two beasts would have been fitting. Once again, unfortunately, I prefer Ol’ Sparky.

You can read about those unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Australia is signatory, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

. Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life,.....

. Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

. Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

. Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Can't be execution-homiciding even the beasts.

Here's the civilised, human rights complying, God-fearing, and acceptable punishment:

Supermax incarceration, the key often 'thrown away' for life;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EJFuYjwRys
INSIDE THE SUPERMAX PRISON AT GOULBURN - PART 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VpCqwPyMJk
INSIDE THE SUPERMAX PRISON AT GOULBURN - PART 2

by ROB Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:02 am

bambu wrote:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

. Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life,.....¹

. Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.²

. Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.³

. Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.⁴

(Article 3. Everyone has the right to life…) Including James Byrd Jr., murdered by Lawrence Russell Brewer, and Officer Aubrey Hawkins, murdered by George Rivas.
(Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.) Including James Byrd, subjected to (a) torture, (b) cruelty, (c) inhumanity, and (d) degradation by Lawrence Russell Brewer.
(Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.) Including James Byrd and Officer Aubrey Hawkins, recognized everywhere in Texas as persons worthy of enjoying life and liberty that was brutally stripped from them by Lawrence Russell Brewer and James Byrd Jr.
(Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.) Including James Byrd Jr. and Officer Aubrey Hawkins, who were equal before the law and were afforded equal protection under the law, without discrimination, by the criminal code of the Sovereign State of Texas, which assessed equal punishment, execution, against their murderers, Lawrence Russell Brewer and George Rivas.

bambu wrote:
Can't be execution-homiciding even the beasts.

Yes we can. In Texas, we executed two murderers, Lawrence Russell Brewer and George Rivas, within the past seven months. I thank God that they no longer pollute the environment of my state.

bambu wrote:
Here's the civilised, human rights complying, God-fearing, and acceptable punishment:

Supermax incarceration, the key often 'thrown away' for life;

Good place for child molesters, rapists, armed robbers, and other criminals who commit violence against persons to spend the remainder of their lives.

by bambu Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:02 am

="RockOnBrother wrote

Good place for child molesters, rapists, armed robbers, and other criminals who commit violence against persons to spend the remainder of their lives.

And murderers.
...all convicteds.

...but not their whole lives for some of the above offences.
Two Aussie kids held up a US bank...the bank they attended every day to bank the store's money, they spoke in their Aussie accents to the staff every day.

Duh!
Weren't hard to find. Smile

Don't think they actually had a gun...but a note, and the fingers in the pocket to look like a gun thing.
They got 8 years.
They were lucky.

What if;

A woman is convicted of murdering her baby, the DNA evidence presented to the court by the prosecutors clearly showing guilt.
Should she be put to death by the state? instead of a life prison sentence.

by Sponsored content