The Sir

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 24, 2011 -> 05:48 PM) How can releasing him because of his poor health be based on a lie when the guy is in a coma? Because in 2009, a doctor said he had three months to live and he got released. He's still alive, and he was well enough to attend a Gaddafi rally earlier this year. That's a lie, at least when considering what the doctor said. And regardless of his health, why should he have been released at all? So he can die peacefully with his family? The 270 people he murdered didn't get that opportunity. So why should he? Compassionate release is crap. You killed 270 innocent people and now you got AIDS/brain cancer/ebola? Great! You can die in prison and we won't have to feed you anymore. Why should we show compassion to people who showed none to their victims? We have no obligation to do that. They did the crime, they were given a fair trial and now they will pay the penalty in full regardless of their health. Please don't tell me we should do it because we need to be better than them, and "hold ourselves to a higher standard". We already do that by not murdering innocent people.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 24, 2011 -> 12:03 PM) Its not a clear cut question. He was convicted in some sort of Scottish proceeding. The Scots are saying that they are the only ones that can request any sort of transfer. That being said there are 2 issues here, 1) what is the current status of his conviction and 2) if he was tried in the US would it be double jeopardy. Im not that knowledgeable on international criminal laws, but Id have no problem if he was tried in the US. I definitely would not agree with applying another countries conviction in the US. I don't want to apply Scotland's conviction. If Scotland believes his compassionate release is null and void because it was a lie, and they want him back, I'd support that. But if they're not going to take that route, we should absolutely demand that he be turned over to us for trial. Double jeopardy? You're a lawyer, I'm not. But I don't think this counts. Not only different jurisdictions, but different countries! He can only be tried once by our country, but the Scottish one does not count towards his right to be protected from double jeopardy. I can't think of any off the top of my head, but haven't there been cases where a person was convicted and imprisoned in one jurisdiction, and upon the termination of that sentence, they were immediately extradited to another jurisdiction to face charges there? I swear that's happened. Maybe I'm wrong. I think we should make some nice offers to the NTC for this dickhead. An increase in foreign aid, some weapons for the military, maybe some training for their soldiers? I'm not sure what, just give 'em something nice for this goon.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Oct 24, 2011 -> 08:54 AM) I'm sure you feel the same way about someone like Luis Posada Carriles. Posada Carriles was never convicted of anything. Well, he was once, in absentia in Panama but he was later pardoned by Panamanian President Mireya Moscoso. And frankly, we have no reason to try him because none of his victims were American. Cuba, Guyana and the DPRK are free to try him for murdering their citizens, but in 35 years they have failed to do so. Now, if Carriles were suspected of, and in one nation convicted of, murdering dozens of people, US citizens among them, and then he was compassionately released to his home nation, then I would be angry and demand his arrest by that nation. Also complicating things is the fact that Carriles has no chance of receiving a fair trial in any of those countries I named previously. I'm not going to support turning someone over to certain extrajudicial executioners in Cuba or North Korea. Your analogy doesn't fly, not that I'm surprised.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 24, 2011 -> 07:15 AM) Isn't he lying comatose in a hospital? That's what the NTC minister who said he would not be turned over to us said. But I'm not convinced. After all, he was supposed to have died back in 2009. That was the stupid logic behind releasing him in the first place and it turned out to be a lie. Yet here he is, still breathing, and only a few months ago he was spotted at a Gaddafi rally. And even if he is comatose, so what? 270 innocent people were murdered twenty years ago. I hope brain cancer hurts like Hell for that turd. It still won't be as bad as what he gave his victims. I don't see why we give compassionate release to anyone, much less to mass murdering terrorists. There's no reason al-Megrahi should not die in a dank, Western prison cell. None whatsoever.

Soxbadger: I didn't think of this the other day when we were discussing this, but I'd be interested to hear your opinion. I still believe Libya is about to fall to radical Islam, so while I believe Gaddafi got what he deserved and is just one asshole killed by other assholes, I'm not celebrating wildly because I don't see that country improving anytime soon. I stand by that. However, one thing that could absolutely appease from the NTC which is poised to take over the country is if they turn Abdel Basset al-Megrahi (the convicted Lockerbie bomber) over to American forces. The Libyan people can do whatever the hell they want with their lives, but al-Megrahi (on Gaddafi's orders) murdered 270 people, many of them Americans, and we have the right to put him on trial. His compassionate release was a fraud (as all compassionate releases are, but that's a topic for another day) and I believe that should be a major point in any talks we have with the new regime. Of course, I believe they've already denied this demand, so the point is probably moot. And that only reinforces my opinions about the sort of people who've taken over. What do you think?

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Oct 21, 2011 -> 12:45 AM) If we're going to liberate Burma, we may as well do the same for Siam. I couldn't think of the proper term for residents of Myanmar off the top of my head. Myanmarese? Myanmarians? Myanmarish? I'd go with the first one, but I'm not sure.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 20, 2011 -> 06:56 PM) I hope for the best because I believe that all people want similar things. It's nice that you're optimistic, however I prefer to be realistic. And the truth is, there have been many leaders ushered (and even elected) into power with high hopes only to turn into complete horror stories. Adolf Hitler, Idi Amin and Pol Pot (OK, maybe that last one only got Noam Chomsky excited) come to mind. And when a new leadership group starts by murdering the predecessor in a brutal fashion, I don't get too hopeful (see: Samuel Doe, Liberian leader who supposedly disemboweled the former leader in his sleep). I hope they have a better life, too. They won't find it under radical Islam. And while I may be wrong about that being where this is going, I feel my suspicions are justified, and I just wish we had done our homework to know exactly who we were supporting before we jumped in with both feet. It's not nice hearing the leaders of the Libyan revolution admit that their fighters have Al Qaeda ties. Furthermore, did you say the same thing about the Iraqis in 2003? Did you support their right to have better lives, free of Saddam? And expanding on that...why not go and liberate every country? The Burmese have pretty crappy lives thanks to Than Shwe and friends. Or Cuba, or Iran, or Syria, or Zimbabwe. Et cetera. It's not our job to provide awesome lives for these people. We should promote peace and democracy in the world, but militaristic force should be reserved to the protection of our interests and the elimination of our direct enemies.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Oct 20, 2011 -> 06:22 PM) Uhh...The Critic was referring to the fact that Buehrle>Wood (Hence "B>W") included Gaddhafi in his possible "death pool" (a pool of people who you think might die in the next year). Nothing political about it. I'm guessing you thought it meant Barack>W. Bush? Not at all. Damn. Well I look like a fool. I did think "B" was a weird, new way to refer to Barack Obama, and I thought this thread was a weird place for politics, but that didn't stop me. Oops. I still think my point is valid due to other reactions I've seen from leftist commenters, but this isn't the place. I'll just shut up.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 20, 2011 -> 06:34 PM) As for going down the road to Islam if thats what the people of Libya want, who am I to stop them. When people are free, they have the right to make their own decisions about their govt. I agree with you. That doesn't mean I think Islamism is a good thing, and I don't really feel we needed to help Libya get there. As for making choices about their government, if radical Islam is the chosen path, that concept isn't going to last long in this new Libya.

QUOTE (The Critic @ Oct 20, 2011 -> 02:55 PM) one check mark for B>W. Hilarious. Saddam was tried, convicted and lawfully hanged and the left cried foul. But Qaddafi was dragged out and summarily executed by a bloodthirsty mob, and the left is claiming victory for Obama's policies. The left and the Democrats are totally OK with war and killing as long as it scores points for their "heroes".

I'm oddly surprised at the reaction of this board. Judging from the video seen here, it looks like Gaddafi was captured alive, beaten severely and summarily executed in the street. I don't feel sorry for him, not that that's going to shock anyone. I watched the video and it almost gained my sympathies, and then I remembered that 270 people were blown to bits over (and in some cases, in), Lodkerbie 23 years ago. And of course, many more Libyans were done away with in equally cruel ways. So frankly, I'd say he earned his fate. Just like Saddam. I did, however, expect a bit more outrage at this sort of thing from this place. Not that I'm whining though...just oddly intrigued by this. Also, as for it being in the hands of the Libyan people, Libyan is heading down the road of Islamism. I won't miss Qaddafi, but I'm certain that those who replace him won't be much different. As I see it, today, one maggot was murdered by a bunch of other maggots. Just my two cents.

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 8, 2011 -> 01:34 PM) No apology necessary. At work, death is a positive result for you. So just like someone who only owns a hammer sees ever problem as a nail, you embrace the death penalty. The quandary as I see it is we feel this guy is evil (and I agree) because he values life so little he would attempt to kill someone with such premeditation and in cold blood. Then as a society we do the same thing. We value life so little we will kill him in a premeditated and cool blooded fashion. With perhaps an even more twisted and cruel manner. We will set a date and allow him to sit in a cell and count down the days until the moment of his death. I believe it would say more about our society when we place such a high value on life that even this murderous scum is allowed to live. I'd prefer he stay locked with a picture of his victim on his wall until God takes his life. I see no reason why he should ever be allowed to walk free again. Is making a guy count down the days and hours 'til we get rid of him forever really a cruel fate? Those people get more justice than they give their victims. They get a trial by jury, endless appeals, visiting time with family, choice of a last meal (well, until this Nazi asshole came along), etc. For their victims, these savages were the juries, the judges and the executioners. There was no chance to say goodbye, there was no chance to eat crab legs one last time, there was no appeal to a higher and possibly more merciful power. So I honestly can't say I give one s*** that they have to ponder their pitiful existence in a cell until the state decides to give them the needle. It's not like they are summarily executed after the trial, or their heads are taken with the guillotine. So I just can't agree with you that our system is overly cruel, or that our actions in any way resemble theirs (not that you seem to be making such an argument, but I have seen people make it before). As for what CW said, I agree. I value his life to the extent that he deserves a trial by jury. Beyond that, I have no pity or sympathy for him. He committed a heinous crime and will now pay the ultimate price. I do, however, value the lives of their victims. It saddens me when people protest on behalf of Troy Davis or Mumia Abu Jamal and don't even know the names of Mark MacPhail or Daniel Faulkner. And seeing some lunatic like Barbara Becnel scream about California executing an "innocent" man in Tookie Williams, a cold blooded murderer who got 26 more years to live than Albert Owens, Yen-Yi Yang, Tsai-Shai Yang and Yu-Chin Yang. I feel for them. For the people who deprived them of life, I feel nothing.

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 7, 2011 -> 05:49 PM) Lives are pretty cheap in your business. I'm not going to apologize for not wanting murderous scum like that to share the planet with you and I. We're better off without them. Period.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 6, 2011 -> 03:01 PM) There's absolutely no reason that that kid should be allowed to walk this earth. I absolutely agree. Hopefully he doesn't make it out of prison alive.

I don't want Palin anywhere near the presidency. Let her go back to guest appearances on the news, and take her trailer trash daughter with her. They both are to conservatism what Lloyd J. Hart is to Occupy Wall Street.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 5, 2011 -> 07:55 AM) I have been hunting and shooting since I was 10. I was taught the above things before I was allowed to touch a gun. It's all about respect. The finger off the trigger is a big thing that many people forget. I'm with ya there. Not many things will get you f***ed up quicker in the Army than running around with your finger on the trigger. As for myself, I can't even watch movies without screaming "TRIGGER DISCIPLINE!" when I see violations of that principle.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 5, 2011 -> 08:09 AM) While the studies (Lott, mostly) that claim to show crime rates dropping due to liberalized gun laws are suspect in what they claim, what they do show is that at the very least crime rates don't increase when gun restrictions are removed. What I think I was getting at in that post (it was three months ago now) was the rare "crime of passion" type incidents. I get what you're saying. However, if you fly off the handle because your wife's in bed with another dude or some dickhead cut you off, and your decision is to shoot that person, you are a psycho. Things just aren't right in your head. I get irate while driving, and often I have a .45 on my hip or under the seat. But I've never shot someone. I've never even pulled it out. Whackos do that, and they shouldn't be owning guns anyway.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Oct 4, 2011 -> 02:25 PM) I have thoughts on gun safety, mostly because this has always made sense to me, and I'm curious what people think (particularly Infantry) - I start with the assumption that Guns are dangerous tools. That means that, in trained, competent hands, they are far less dangerous than they are in, for instance, my hands (did not grow up around guns, have never fired a gun). I'm neither anti-gun, nor anti-the 2nd Amendment, but I think firearm ownership is a huge resposibility because they are dangerous in the wrong hands. With that in mind, would you be against a training class in firearm use being a prerequisite to gun ownership? Makes sense to me, and I don't think it would really be an inconvenience to someone that already knew the basics of firearm safety, but I'm curious about what others think. You're absolutely right. Guns are tools, and if you use them improperly, they'll kill ya. Me? My guns won't ever kill anyone I don't intend to kill. And that's because I know what gun safety is and I follow it every day. So on that note, I wouldn't be against a mandated class. I think there would be exemptions, like I shouldn't have to take a class because of my training and if you've attended a certified police academy you should be exempted and so on. But if you're just some average joe, then yeah, you should take a class. If you grew up around guns, it will be a breeze. And in general, if you're not a retard, it should be easy. One day should do it. Gun safety isn't hard. Don't point the gun at anybody even if you're sure it's unloaded, keep your finger off the trigger until you're going to pull it, never hand someone a loaded weapon, and even if you are sure it's not loaded, clear it before you hand it to someone. Also, know what you're shooting at and know what's beyond that target. Maybe the class should cover self defense laws within the proper jurisdiction, but except for that, I pretty much just summed up what the class should cover. Stupid gun owners make me and the legitimate gun owners that I'm friends with look bad. A class won't hassle us one bit (hell, I took the class for Texas CC and it was the easiest eight hours of my life), but it might prevent some moron from getting a gun and doing something stupid. So I'm down for it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 3, 2011 -> 07:56 PM) It is a good thing that this guy is dead. I wholeheartedly agree!

Wait a second... The president OKs an operation that you find to be against the law, and even though he made no effort to get Congress to change the law and happily carried through on the operation, you blame Congress for not obliging him and making sure his actions were legal? That's what I get from you sarcastically noting that Congress couldn't possibly give Obama a win, and frankly, that's ridiculous.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Oct 2, 2011 -> 03:43 PM) Either way, you definitely do not go out with another girl while dating her. You probably shouldn't even ask the other girl out first, as that's pretty s***ty. Imagine yourself in that position. You find out your girlfriend asked another guy out, he said no, so she kept dating you. Or you find out that your girlfriend went out on a date with another guy while still dating you. I'd be pretty angry and I think you would be, too. In light of the rather significant typing error, I'll vouch for this post. And maggsmaggs, the typing error still doesn't change that the friend knows (well, I assume) that you have a girlfriend and probably won't react favorably to you trying to date her without dumping the other girl first.

Obama Fried Chicken opens in Beijing. This is hilarious. Props to the Chi-Coms.

You don't seem like the wife-having type. Also, I was having avatar issues and needed a test post.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Oct 2, 2011 -> 01:43 PM) So I have been going out with this girl for about three months. I like her, but I am supremely convinced there is a long-term future. There is another girl that I am friends with that I would like to ask out, who I think I would like better than my current GF. But since I still do like my GF, if I got rejected by the other girl, I would probably still want to continue going on with my current GF. What do I do? I know I need to ask out my friend, but do I do I have to breakup with my current GF to do that? Or can I go on one date (assuming she said yes) with the new girl and see how it goes, then break up with her if the date went well? I just don't want to cheat on my current GF. I really hope this is some weird satire. If you are this convinced that you like the friend and you absolutely need to ask her out, then you are not "supremely convinced there is a long-term future" with your current girlfriend. If you were that certain about you current girlfriend, you would focus on dating her and not be so concerned with other dating possibilities. There are always going to be more "fish in the sea". For me, I'm sure there are other travel-lusting, conservative, cute girls out there that I could date, but I don't spend a second wondering about them because I actually like my current travel-lusting, conservative, cute girlfriend and am actually supremely convinced of my long-term future with her. Also consider that if this friend knows you well, she surely knows you have a girlfriend. And unless she's a complete harlot and an idiot, she's not going to think fondly of you trying to jump her bones while still jumping someone else's bones. It's not exactly an admirable quality that normal, sane people look for in their lovers. Do what you want. But realize that these considerations mean you do have doubts about your current relationship. And if you decide to carry through on asking this other girl out, you need to break up with the current one first. It just wouldn't be fair to her.

Really, dude? Did I really have to say, "never vote for non-veterans, cheaters or liberals"? C'mon, you're being ridiculous. I'm telling you what I believe and if you want to keep referring to a past comment of mine where I didn't elaborate entirely on my standards for politicians, then whatever.