February 26th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
And the Japanese never invaded and captured and held for two years the Alaska Aleutian Islands chain either. That was just some misguided whale boaters from Japan who lost their way. Oh, yeah, and those guns they had were for shooting seals.”

I never said that the Japense didn’t do any of that stuff. My point is that it is part of the historical record that the FDR adminstration baited the Japense into attacking Pearl Harbor and that they even knew that the attack was comming and even knew when it was comming and that they ALLOWED it to happen WITHOUT BOTHERING TO NOTIFY THE MILITARY FORCES THAT WERE STATIONED THERE. The FDR adminstration set up their own military. This was TREASON.

The fact of the matter is that World War II could have been avoided.

It is not on there because it is a war that could have and should have been avoided.

Andy, don’t be ridiculous. 1941 SHOULD BE on your list!

February 24th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Andy, do you or do you not support the death penalty for those who commit murders here in the United States, most especially those who muder children, and serial killers?

If you are not a pacifist, then surely you would be pro-death penalty at least?

Pacifist = Anti-Death Penalty, Anti-War

Honest & Sincere Anti-War non-Pacifist = Anti-War, Pro-Death Penalty

I note that Ron Paul is both Anti-War and Anti-Death Penalty.”

I don’t have a problem in principle with executing murders, however, the problem is – as Stephen Gordon pointed out – that the criminal justice system is not run in a fair manner. Considering how screwed up the criminal justice system is can we really trust the death penalty to be handled right?

The best time to give out the death penalty is while the crime is taking place, which is why I’m a strong advocate of the right to keep & bear arms.

I am not neccessarily anti-war, I am just wise to the fact that the majority of wars are either based on lies or could have been avoided. As General Smedley Butler said, “War is a racket.” and as Randolph Bourne said, “War is the health of the state.”

I support the death penalty for politicians and government bureacrats who violate the Constitition.

February 24th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Andy, was there ever a War in our Nation’s 235 year history that you supported?

1776?”

The only war that I would have supported would have been the revolution against England.

I’m not evading your question, but don’t have time to answer in detail at the moment. It also requires a bit of depth and can’t be answered in a quick soundbyte. Give me a call if you want more; you have my number.

Have you ever watched a movie where every scene shot (in multiple cities) occurs in neighborhoods which you know well? This is such a case for me.

Remember, I’m personally connected (was elected Vice Chair of the Alabama LP a few times and am the current Chair) to the specific case you brought up. In addition to Alabama, it’s well known that I spend a lot of time in DC/NOVA/Maryland. What you may not know is that I have spent a lot of time in Washington state, where the two culprits allegedly met. For a whole lot of reasons, this particular case hits very close to home for me.

Another not-so-well-known fact about my life is that I worked, for a short period of time during a break in military service, on death row in a state prison. I’ve met mass murderers face-to-face and actually spent a fair amount of time around a very heinous one named John Joubert. I was involved in the Boy Scout program (was an Assistant Scoutmaster in Lincoln until I went on active duty) in Nebraska, too—providing yet another tie to this set of murders. I probably met Joubert at some event in the early 80s, a few years prior to when I heard him bragging about the very literal taste of young boys in a death row setting.

Joubert was just as Christian as Muhammad was Islamic, in my personal opinion. Sometimes people of all religions are equally disturbed. Take a look at the treatment of the Cathars by the Holy Roman Church (or the rest of the Inquisition). I’m not indicting all Islam, Judaism or Christianity—they all have their positives and all have their negatives. Here’s a simple fact for you to digest: Some folks are bad; some are good. One can’t condemn an entire race or belief system on the actions of a few depraved individual members.

A quick short answer is that I prefer the death penalty to be administered up close and personal. Depending upon the range, proper administration of the death penalty to someone who messes with my family or property would properly be executed in the following order: my bare hands, .357, .44 or 30.06 (and my scope is properly sighted in—although I find the thought of shooting someone in the back somewhat distasteful).

When the government becomes involved, it becomes more complicated. Bad jury pools, deal cutting with prosecuters, and even torture cloud the picture on potentially “good convictions.” In many cases, DNA evidence provides some great solutions. Unfortunately, the government often fights compelling empirical evidence in order to hang someone (anyone) quickly.

Specifically, in the Muhammad/Malvo case, government incompetence or overreaction doesn’t seem to be the case. I’ve no problem with the execution of either of them.

However, I’d strongly support some major changes to our judicial system to ensure that sentencing issues ranging from the death penalty to the disparity of sentences between white and black people (i.e. powdered vs. crack cocaine) are more properly administered. I’m opposed to executing seriously mentally retarded people who don’t understand the nature of the crime and are no longer a threat to anyone. I’m also opposed to releasing such people back on to the streets. I believe that anyone charged with a crime, most especially capital ones, deserves reasonable representation in court.

If we, as a society, are going to execute someone, we’d damn better insure that there is no chance that we have made some mistake along the way. We need to balance our lust for vengeance with a modicum of intelligence and compassion. Likewise, we need to consider the desires of the victim/family of the victim.

What does this all have to do with Radical Muslims wanting to take over Europe, already rampaging in Paris, Copenhagen and Amsterdam, and running one of their own for POTUS under the guise of a nice friendly downhome Senator from Illinois?”

Eric,

1.) Yes it was a bit of history, however, I disagree with you on its relevancy. The Statists playbook obviously needs an enema!

2.) Those countries finding themselves under attack from within by any radicals, not just ‘Muslim extremists’, need to handle it just like a police action if crime is involved. Remember, all countries at some point in time are changed by demographics…just as when our ancestors the Spaniards, the French and the English took over the Americas. Also, as it is now within the USA. We must get immigrants assimilated ASAP or kick them out. The quicker we bring them up the financial ladder & out of poverty, the quicker they start voting for less government, less taxes, etc…

3.) We all know what we’re facing. Those cities you mention, Paris, for example, the French are rather bigoted as I recall. When peoples are oppressed into indentured servitude and are not allowed a path to greater achievements…revolution is a natural process. Which brings us to BHO. I think that this guy is leading a populist based revolt, nothing more. It’s been proven that almost none of his supporters know of any of his prior accomplishments, other than the fact that he is a Senator, and he’s about to be our next POTUS. I can tell you this, if push were to come to shove from his administration, I’ll be one of the first on the front lines trying to stop him. After all, isn’t that what are founders intended as they granted us the right to keep and to bare arms?

4.) “Death Penalty opponents, Pacifist or not?” I’ve always been a self defense advocate. I never started any fights, but I damn sure did finish some. If the death penalty is a tool that is properly used, I think it does serve a valuable purpose as a deterrent. I’m from Texas, we have the death penalty, I support it. If our U.S. interests are attacked we reserve the right, as does any sovereign nation, to retaliate in self defense. So, I’m not a Pacifist.
I’d like to point out that there are inherent problems with the death penalty as there is with going to war. And that is why it is imperative that our court systems and federal government be overhauled to prevent previous ‘historical’ mistakes from recurring. No system is ever perfect, but that doesn’t mean that we stop trying to perfect them.

If however, you oppose all Wars and also oppose the Death Penalty for Capital Murder cases, you cannot escape the label. Whether you like it or not, you are by definition a Pacifist, no if, ands or buts.

Stephen, Andy, David, Robert, others here how ‘bout it? Let’s get you all on record? Death Penalty opponents or not?

The co-worker of the wife of your own Alabama Libertarian Party Vice-Chairman was shot and killed by the Radical Muslim Beltway Sniper John Muhammed at a suburban Birmingham Liquor Store in 2003. The wife of the AL Vice Chair herself was shot in the neck and crippled for life.

Would you support the death penalty for John Muhammed?

I’m not a vet and have never fired a gun, but I too am not a pacificist. I agree on empire and nation building. I can’t say I’m 100% opposed to any preemption ever, but certainly I oppose Iraq. I would like to see evidence of an imminent attack, of course.

This military veteran and gun enthusiast is far from being a pacifist. I am, however, against preemptive wars, empire and nation building.

My key point is that beltway libertarians (most of whom, at least of my acquaintence, do actively support Ron Paul) aren’t to blame for the perception that the Paul campaign is drawing down.