Justice

Okay, this is moronic. I'm tired of watching this endless debate continue. Duo: Your argument is fatally flawed. You argue because we don't execute minors it would not have been right to kill him in that instance. Is that correct? If so, your argument about "He shouldn't get killed because we don't have the death penalty for minors" is completely wrong because this doesn't deal with a trial and sentencing, this deals with apprehension. If a cop has a gun pointed at them, child or no, if he feels that his life is in danger or that people around him are in danger they are allowed to use whatever force necessary to defuse the situation. The same goes for soldiers: Whether or not he realizes the consequences behind it, the child was pointing a rapid fire assault weapon at soldiers in the US Armed Forces. The soldier felt that the child, regardless of his level of understanding, could cause considerable harm to his fellow soldiers and most likely any civilians in the area. The action of killing the child, no matter his motive or level of understand, because he posed a rather large threat to the soldier, his squadmates, and civilians in the area, is completely justifiable even if it is a bit tragic. Your constant assertions of "How do we know he could aim?" make no sense because nothing in the article suggests that he couldn't. He came out and pointed the gun at the soldiers; technically, that would qualify as aiming. It wouldn't matter anyways, because in a combat situation soldiers ALWAYS treat guns as being loaded and their owners as people who know how to use them, regardless of age. Understanding doesn't matter when he's still a threat. If not, then your current argument makes absolutely no sense. The people against you are arguing that the soldier (Or anyone else in the same situation) would be justified in their actions. If you agree with that, then what the fuck do you keep going on about? He's not getting a trial or being sentenced to death; that wasn't even remotely suggested here. Hell, no one said he ever deserved to die. Hell, Anglesault (In the post before your first) commended the guy on his restraint because if he had seen someone point a gun at him, regardless of their age he would have taken them down. That's not a sentence to death, that's saying "He was a bit cooler under fire than I would ever be". Hell, I don't even know why you posted that flame because NO ONE WAS DOING WHAT YOU WERE BASHING! In conclusion, I reccommend stopping before you look stupider than cartman.

Just as a clarifacation, the kid was pointing the rifle at the soldiers. And just to look at your ORIGINAL argument: Yes, if he were APPREHENDED, moron. If he shot the cop and the cop's partner shot and killed the child, he's totally justified in his actions. The child was not under control and was still a threat. Whether or not he knows what he is doing is inconsequential because his actions are directly endangering the lives of both soldiers on duty and civilians around him. On Recoil: Recoil doesn't mean a thing if you can still get the first shot off, and having an AK-47 blazing wildly in every direction because of said recoil is still dangerous nonetheless. To say that he couldn't kill the soldiers because of recoil is just plain stupid.

If you shoot and kill someone you didn't intend to, it's an accidental shooting. How hard is that? Because civilians can still be shot if you meant to shoot them as well. Hell, I'll bet that a lot of the people who get shot and killed were not just bystanders, but either guerillas or people mistaken for guerillas. What about richochets and other things? Maybe you didn't see a guy get killed, but now he's dead. Is he a guerilla or a civilian? The matter of civilian casualties is not as black and white as you seem to make it.

Problem is, how do you tell a civilian from a guerilla? They engage in a target, they shoot 10 people dead. They are all in civilian clothing. Who is who is who? And it's not as though all guerillas carry rifles: You can have people with just a molotov cocktail, an RPG that they toss after they fired it, and other makeshift explosive devices. This isn't "Shoot first, ask questions later", this is "Get shot at first, return fire, 'Uh, who is who, sir?', 'Don't rightly know...'" And not to call the Sunnis biased or anything, but... well, I think you know what i mean there.

Mad Max, dude. TWO MEN ENTER! ONE MAN LEAVE! Personally, we should just start doing gladitorial bouts for the Presidency. It'd be so much more entertaining.

Wildbomb: I think there would be a real question of "What is bias?" because as you showed in your poll, people have VERY different opinions about what the media is biased towards. What doesn't seemed biased towards you may seemed biased towards me. Hell, that would make the FCC a massively powerful politcal tool because it could really threaten channels to be "More patriotic!" or "Be more critical of *Insert Party* so you can look fair!". It's all opinion and it varies so much that you'd have non-stop cases calling just every national news station either a "Liberal Propaganda Center" or a "Right-wing Conspiracy Tool". The two books you mentioned could easily present enough evidence to just about every news agency in big trouble, and it will all depend on the politics of the FCC when it comes down to who is gonna get it and who won't.

Schlumberger and Bechtel. So you are more qualified to choose a reconstruction company than the US Military, eh? *Claps* Haliburton did this job for them in the first Gulf War. Isn't it kind of logically for them to turn back to them to do the same job? And explain to me what control Dick Cheney had in this, or why Haliburton is never allowed to have a government contract again, because I think I missed this.

I think we argee for the most part. I'd prefer the UN to foot some of the bill and give us some manpower, but they don't seem to want to give any of the latter unless they get full control, which I'm leery of because they haven't had a successful operation in God only knows how long. Again, help is nice, but they should want to help; We need not beg from them for the small amount they are likely to give. UN wouldn't be looked upon as an occupying force? Why not? They look exactly the same and would be doing the exact same things, and they would still be outsiders. They'd still be look upon as an 'occupying force' simply because they are there. I don't see anything that would really suggest that. I'll quote this one part because I think it needs attention: Really, was it that much better? I think that's a bit of an exaggeration there... But seriously, putting a UN face on it does nothing. We would still do the same things, and if we didn't it would probably take a turn for a less aggressive stance against taking on this current resistance, which is not something that should be done. You know there are British, Italian, Polish, and other countries there as well. I mean, a lot of what's already there is probably what would have comprised of a UN police force because Russia, France, and Germany aren't pledging troops any time soon. A lot of the manpower would still be coming from the US and the 'being occupied' mentality that some have right now would still be there. Um, what? Excuse me? Let's stop shovelling bullshit here. When did we "Shoot first, file blah blah blah" this? We've been very restrained in our actions and we've tried to keep civilian casualties to a minium in a conflict where that hinders us a bunch. That's just more "The US Army has the Rambo Mentality" bullshit that Mummering Beast was spouting months ago. Hell, what would the UN do differently that would be so much more effective? The "Stay there until resistance is met, then pull the hell out" gameplan? Explain to me what the UN plan of attack would be, and then tell me why this would be so much more effective.

Well, no. I posted a plan to try and make the country able to defend itself to any outside threat and give them the oppertunity to make it stable, not use it as a pet experiment in industrializing the middle east at the expense of our time, our money, and our military. And we are doing that now? How so? Seriously, you are making up shit now. Have I ever said I wanted to industrialize the Middle East? No. I said that having new industries being able to go over there now wouldn't be bad. But hey, whatever. If you want to believe that we are trying to turn it into a capitalistic dream-world and that we think it will solve all their problems, so be it. I just don't remember it ever being discussed. I never said it can be religion free. Religion is so interconnected with our morals that no political machine can be completely free of religion. We can, though, try and keep out the bigger stuff such as intolerance and most forms of favoritism. Please, don't put words into my mouth so you can sound better. And please explain to me how the UN will be better at keeping the major religious influences out of the government. And you don't think this one will be the same as well? The UN hasn't done anything to impress me, so please state where it suddenly has the ability to do things like keep a close eye on a rebuilding nation when all they've done in the past is done "aethestic appearances? Seriously, you put your faith in something that hasn't done anything worthwhile in God only knows how long. We are taking their resources?! OMG NO WAR FOR OIL!!!E$&*(#$*(!@)#& Christ, that's so played. Again, I don't see how you can't trust the American Government to do what is right here, yet you'll allow a international body with a horrid track record come in and (With the most honest intentions, because UN is all about that) magically make everything better. I'm not saying the UN shouldn't help, but it should be just that: Help. They didn't want to commit to the action, so they shouldn't get full control. Besides, it isn't like this is just the US. You have the whole Coalition of the Willing there as well. But hey, if you really want Germany and France and Russia to come along and not pledge any troops, okay. Yes. But why would the normal Iraq citizen take any better to someone from France or Bolivia rather than someone from the US? Will your average loyalist stop attacking when he sees a UN soldier instead of a US soldier? Explain the advantage of having a UN military force here, because "Less troops, less resolve" doesn't seem like a pro in this situation. I suppose what I'm saying here is explain to me why the UN should take over this operation. How have they proven to us that they can do a better job here with less manpower and a less-than-watchful eye? When I say "Opening up to new industries", I'm not talking about bulldozing a mosque and putting up a Walmart. I'm talking a slow and natural progression of outside influences to come in. I don't see how everyone is going to be suddenly driven to rage when they see a McDonald's pop up. That's just me, though. They are far along, that's obvious. But to say "DON'T ALLOW ANYTHING ELSE TO COME IN!" is not the smartest thing. If you don't let anyone in, you will just make them more inclusionary and xenophobic. Do you want Iraq to have no business connections to the outside world or something?

We could rededicate our efforts to getting it working, getting elections running, getting their military operative again, and leaving. Getting the UN involved from the ground floor would at least insure a government that an eye can be kept on, as opposed to the Saddam government style of using smoke and mirrors to try and hide from the UN and commiting heinous acts of brutality behind the scenes. Of course, if you're not willing to trust the UN and believe it's secretly against us, then you're never going to get to that point and you're going to wind up at square one in another dozen years. If the new government's first order of business isn't to adapt themselves into an order that's not ideal to our situation (and trust me, it won't), then yes, we'll have to deal with the fact that this area is far too steeped in religion and history to change in a few years. These people are NOT going to put down their guns and eat a Big Mac and forcing them to through occupation and fear will only make enemies in many years to come. So you basically made your witty little first post irrelevant by posting your actual plan. Odd. How is the UN going to be that much more effective at rooting out theocratic influences than we are? I mean, you mention their failure with keeping an eye on Saddam when he was in power, why would they do that much better of a job now? Or are you saying that the US Interim government is corrupt and full of smoke and mirrors? It doesn't quite work out, man. Not to say they can't help us, but why would they succeed where we wouldn't? Your first post basically said "Looking at the history of the region, there is nothing we can do to change it". Well, what will the UN, which is just as looked down upon as the US (Remember that UN buildings have been targeted a few times in attacks, so they are obviously not happy to have them in the country either) going to do that's so drastically different than us? Fact is that, while this post is a somewhat feasible plan (I'd like to see the UN involved, but a full pullout would be moronic considering that many countries simply won't pledge the amount of troops that we can put there). We just believe that commercializing Iraq will make everything better? When the fuck did we claim this? And hell, why wouldn't the UN do this? It certainly isn't a total solution, but it wouldn't hurt to open up more modernized service jobs there and put in some high-tech industry. I don't see why the UN wouldn't try to attract business to the area. I agree with some of your points, but your first post was NOT the same as the second.

I never suggested that. But I think these visions of a commercialized Iraq with unrevokable freedoms and a government with as little theocratic influence as possible are all a pipe dream to anyone who knows the reality of the situation. Iraqis are not going to change their minds because a McDonalds, Wal-Mart, and a Blockbuster were built in their town on our dime. So what should we do? Are we just to resign ourselves to saying "Well, they are ALWAYS going to be a backwards society and there is no hope for the region and just let it be?" I don't think that the change will come soon, but I believe that the change will eventually come. It has to happen and it will happen. Maybe not in the next five years, or even the next ten, but it will happen and we have to stay there allow it to occur. Do you argue with this or no, because I think we argee on this.

In the little book discussion here, I'm suddenly reminded of our Senate Simulation where we threatened a filibuster by holding up Slander and threatening to read the entire book .

I'd prefer to just plain pull out of Iraq and leave the UN to do the job with an inadequate amount of troops and all the resolve and backbone of the 2002 Democratic Party. THEN all the problems would go away because we wouldn't have to look at it anymore. Problems aren't there if we pitch them off to other countries who couldn't give a rat's ass... right? Right?

The right to have national banks isn't expressed in the Constitution, either. Do you suggest that Congress doesn't have the power to charter a bank? Do you suggest Congress doesn't have the power to charter such things as the FCC, etc.? That wasn't in the constitution, either. Then again, that's under the implied powers of CONGRESS, Tyler. The right to privacy was created by the Court itself. If we want a right to privacy, make it an amendment and pass it through Congress because the Courts themselves don't have the power to do so themselves: it's a Legislative Branch power, not a Judicial branch power.

The British did offer their manpower, and they do their job well if you consider that British heads of state don't get killed that often. But the White House insists on using it's own people here. Oh no, we are talking about foreign heads of state coming to the US. But I did not know that. Gotta love the Brits .

I wouldn't be surprised if the Secret Service lended some of their man-power to the job.

LMAO, that is a dumbshit reporter for you. Dozens of people? A minigun fires at a max rate of 6,000 rounds per minute. Yeah, I think it can handle dozens. And it was used in Vietnam on boats in the Mekong Delta, and has many other uses, besides being used from a tank. I've never heard of miniguns being mounted on tanks, though that'd be one thing I'd NEVER want to see as an infantry man. Considering we use these things in areas like Psychological Warfare with "Spookies" and have them nail missiles out of the mid-air to protect our war ships, I'd say they are something fucking frightening even to think about facing.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize John McCain was a democrat. He's less of a Republican than Zell Miller is a Democrat. -=Mike I doubt that. McCain votes with his own party more than Zell Miller does. I'd actually like to see numbers on that. I'm legitimately curious. -=Mike I believe that McCain votes Republican (Way back in a Time issue around the time Jim Jeffords was leaving the party) about 75%-73% of the time. Zell, actually, votes 23%-27% of the time (Or thereabouts). I'm pretty sure on this, though I'm sure someone could get me exact tallies.

Oh, for a sec I was gonna say that "Their State Constitution had a supremecy clause that overruled all other laws?!" Next time just say "Judicial Review" rather than Marbury, since that's a bit more accurate to how the facts were argued. But yeah, I now agree with you.

See: Bush v. Gore 531 U.S. 98 (2000) Well, considering it is the only nationally elected official the Supreme Court does have some legitimacy to make a decision there. Other than that, I'd have to say I agree with the decision. I honestly don't see a point in not allowing any more.

If you've ever read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, that's very debatable. You have an incredibly Laisse Faire court (As proven in Lochner v. New York, which essentially cut off the power of the Legislature to put on things like health restrictions and hour limits. Also look at Hammer v. Dagenhart, which would strike down a Federal Child Labor law on the grounds that it overstretched Congress' commerce clause powers) which refused to help out the common worker, Union busters, people working ungodly amounts of hours in slaughterhouses where the working conditions are probably more dangerous (With tons of knives, slick surfaces, massive vats of lye that people sometimes fell into, you were easily risking your own lives every day you were in there), housing that was abysmal, police and lawyers that were always on teh side of business, and other such things. One could say that even the climate (They talk about one boy in the factories who came in screaming because his ears were frostbitten, and the foreman simply walked over, cupped his hands over the ears and plucked them off) was against them. Slaves had nothing? So did these people. All they lacked was the name. Oh, and I named the court cases above. You aren't the only people that have been oppressed by a court ruling.

What is your real name? William Reginald Hearford III. Where do you live? At the moment? A Georgian Colonial in Ferndale, Michigan. I'm actually only a few blocks away from the Detroit Zoo, so I visit it often. What's your marital satatus and do you have kids? Divorced with two daughters, 22 and 19. I never mentioned it in Kay-fabe, though. I think they are still a little embarrassed that their father runs around in tights and tosses people around for a living *Laughs*. Who's your best friend outside of kayfabe? Ejiro and Tom, easily. Over the last year I've gotten to know them better than I probably have any wrestler in my career. I was also quite close to Fugue back when he was still around, and he's probably the wrestler I miss most at the moment. Who's your favourite WWE Wrestler? Currently? Hm. I'd have to say Shawn Michaels at the moment, because he shows that grey foxes like me can still hang with the young blood. Who's you favourite Other wrestler (US Indies or Japan)? Oh boy. I'd have to say A.J. Styles. The boy has tons of talent and I'd like to see him get out of TNA and move on to something bigger. What's your favourite match to watch? Steve Austin vs. Bret Hart, Wrestlemania XIII. Two men who were insanely popular putting on an incredibly emotional, entertaining match. I still love the finish to this day. Who's your favourite Band or singer? Well, I honestly don't have a favorite band. If I really had to choose... I suppose the Who, the Beatles, and Frank Sinatra would be at the top. What's your favourite album? The White Album. A true classic. What's your favourite song? My Way by Frank Sinatra. Again, another real classic. What's your favourite film? I'd have to say that the recent Lord of the Ring films have been absolutely incredible. They'll take my Which sporting teams/franchises do you support? I've always been a big Red Wings and Lions fan, and I'm just getting back into the Pistons; Personally I stopped watching when Chuck Daly and the Bad Boys filtered out for the yearly promising rookie flop that would come along. And I don't think it'd be right for me not to mention Al (The Boston Stranger) getting me to enjoy the Red Sox since I've never really liked baseball. What sports do you play? I golf moderately well, though I've always been an ice-skater. I still have some old goalie pads in my basement somewhere that would put Arturs Irbe to shame. And finally... if you weren't a wrestler what WOULD you be? *Laughs* Well, I'd probably start up a private practice since my license was only revoked in Kayfabe.

Again, we are talking about a hatred that transcends color here. Did it help? Meh, if you were an admitted Jew or Irishman, you were still going to get tons of shit, black, white, red, blue, whatever. It's just what comes with the ethnicity. And just having the option for an easy way out doesn't mean that they were accepted quicker: If that were the case, the Irish would still be hated and all the Irish would just throw away their heritage, which obviously hasn't happened. They had to suffer hard to get where they are now as accepted are today. I think that the black race, with the progressive society that we have today, should be doing a bit better than they are but that their 'leaders' have lead them to concentrate on the dying racism rather than self-improvement of their own race that they need. Again, the NAACP is a big organization that has swing and resources. Maybe they can legitimize themselves a bit among the community if they actually started concentrating on the community. That's all. Honestly the Chinese that came over weren't respected as numbers people but as simple laborers for the rails. You could make a case that they had a lot of the stigmas that the black race had to deal with, but they did overcome them eventually. Their stereotype, though, has changed so much and it's weird to see them come from serious oppression and ignomy to where they are today. And yes, stereotypes about all Asians being incredible students is wrong. But statistics sure show that a lot of them are up there in the class rankings. It's not as though they haven't earned that distinction. Did I say they were worse off than they were in the 60's? Unless someone is using my name without me knowing, I never said that. It's obvious they've improved; that's a fact. I think they could be improving a lot faster if they started to address some of the problems that are affecting their communities, like all the young mothers coming out of the inner-cities, screwing both themselves and their children. The whole "Thug" subculture that isn't doing wonders for your race either could maybe be addressed: It certainly hasn't helped the image of the average black american much. I think that they need to address these so they can move faster and eliminate the current disparity between races. That's a much better, concetrated argument than what you put forth before, and I agree with a lot that is there. I wish you had said this earlier rather than now, but this is a really good statement. Honestly (And this is not a problem that can really be fixed), I think that the majority of black americans are seen, through the political spectrum, to support Jesse Jackson and your current black leaders because of their political affliation and how blacks as a whole generally vote. Not that it's right, but one could say similar things about people looking at Republicans and them thinking much like Bush; they might not, but because of their political affliation they are grouped in that way. Your leaders have politicized race in such a way that political affliation and color are almost intertwined: A black democrat is instantly thought of having the pulse of the black community, which may not be the case.

I never said that it's only a black problem. I said it's a problem that your leaders have failed to address because they are too busy watching politicans like pitbulls for some freudian slip-up. It's most prevailant in inner-cities and rural areas, and most of the black race tends to be in the inner-city. And yes, class does play a part, but having kids young certainly puts you much further behind and keeps you down there, which is why it needs to be addressed. Why do you need leaders? Indeed, it's debatable. Maybe you just need better, more focused leaders now to lead a community effort to fix these problems. You have an organization like the NAACP at your disposal, why not put it to good use? And what did you disagree with me here on? You seem adamant on disagreeing with me, but we agree on similar points. Whatzupwitdat? It wasn't law everywhere. It may have been common unspoken practice, De Facto segregation, which isn't much better, but fact is the things restricting blacks were far less in the North and out West than in the South, and many of those things began to head out with the onset of AA. A lot of Northern Racism things were eliminated via early AA programs and a very progressive atttitude at the time so today the North, while not racist-free, is a very accomandating and unbiased place to live. Simple disdain for a race is still racism, even if it is mild, and it is a problem for me. Again, I get a lot of cold stares, not people attacking me in the streets (Though I'm sure there are a few people in town who want to do that as well, I probably just haven't seen them yet). Bullshit. Your argument basically "They were white, which allowed them to get past it easily enough". Trust me, no matter what color you were, if you were openly Irish or Jewish you were going to have a hard God-damn time. There are still a lot of people who dislike Jews and Irish people, but they were still able to move past that. The Chinese deal with the same racism you did, a lot of it de facto, and they couldn't change their name or "hide" it with their appearance. Their culture is one of hard work and sacrifice and they were able to raise themselves from second-class citizen status to ones who continually are at the top of our educational system. So what if some changed their names? Yes, some did, but the only ones that matter in the argument are the masses that didn't and were able to push past the racism set in front of them. The hatred against Irish and Jews is a very deep one and they were still able to get past it in America despite the obstacles put against them. Again, changed names is an irrelevant argument because the only thing we need to focus on is those who were afflicted with prejudice (Which was very sizable amount). I understand the argument you put forth, but I don't agree very much with how you put it, which is why my reaction was so harsh. I appoligize, but I still think that the Black race is stuck in a rut with thinking that racism is their main foe when they need to stablize some cultural problems to move up to the next step. That's all I'm saying here. No, you said this nation was taught racism and so was it's children: I don't see that in with the huge majority of people that I know or meet. I don't believe it this massive movement and that the huge majority of people were taught that blacks aren't as good as whites. Maybe it's so subtle that even I can't pick it up; maybe they shake their hands differently, but I don't see it a massive disdain or distrust or even of blacks around me outside of the few hillbillies that live nearby. It's not dead, but it's not widespread, institutionalize or accepted in almost all of America save for a few areas here and there. Racism is dying off because people today aren't being taught racism, but tolerance and acceptance. Again, it's not a massive problem anymore; it's something that is on the way out and is dying off more and more everyday. I think the "No the fuck it isn't" kinda registers with me that you see it still as a big problem, but I see it as something that we are moving past quickly enough that I'm not worried about it. And my teeth are fine, damn it. I didn't wear braces for nothing . Bah. Your original post was not the smartest in it's wording, and I'll admit my response wasn't either . I've felt like I'm going to be called one any second because I'm coming on more on Mike's side than anyone else, and I suppose because of you calling him one I felt that you were calling me one. Whatever, then. I certainly feel like I'm being grouped in as one so that saying the actual word doesn't need to be said, and I have been called a racist before for my affirmative action (In real life. Fucking college students...) and I've always felt that the terms share a very similar hatred behind them. But whatever... OMG DOUBLE STANDARD! I'M BEING REPRESSED!

That's kinda odd. I'd need a source on it, because personally it seems a bit out there considering they'd hire Chinese and Native Americans for those jobs as well and they arguably had it worse than blacks in some of those areas. Then again, it isn't completely out of the realm of possibility. Again, I need some proof on this because that really seems out there... Actually, you are very wrong here. You are either referring to Sweatt v. Painter (Involving University of Texas) or Missouri ex rel Gaines v. Canada, both of which are considered to be part of the South (Or in Missouri's case, a border state that had very Southern rules). Again, all these were where slavery once took place and I really doubt that similar statutes were in law in places like Michigan or California or other places because I've really never heard of them.