Guess who's going to get it first.........


Status
Not open for further replies.
bluedog said:
No what you chose to do is to continue to show just how mentality disturb you really are.

This conversation was about one thing and and one thing only and this "WHAT YOUR POSITION ON THE DEATH PENALTY IS".

Only a mentally ill/deranged person would think they would have to be so ugly, vulgar, and descriptive to try and win their position and I would appreciate it if you leave my children out of your damn mouth when it comes to your morbid descriptions, say/use me or any adult your sick mind feel you need to but leave my children out of you fvcking mouth.

Now I'll ask you again....
Click to expand...



......still not man enough.:shame:
 
MikeBigg said:
First of all torture is wrong... period. And as for what he did to our soldiers, I can't find him guilty at all. You do realize that these soldiers were being sent into a war zone to commit war acts against the enemy. Regardless of how you and I may feel about the bravery of these soldiers, to this man they are the enemy. He sees them on a war vessel headed to his region for the purposes of war and not peace.

Attacking a military installation (not including hospitals), military equipment, etc is not terrorism, it is an act of war. If this was a non-military vessel or any type then it would be an act of terrorism. Blowing up the World Trade Center was an act of Terrorism... Attacking the Pentagon was an Act of War. I was not happy with either one, but I understand the difference.

Let's flip the script... If the ship of some other nation was docked in a USA port with soldiers taking a break from their war on the USA or those who were fighting on our behalf against what they deem as an attack, and their weapons and resources for war were so much greater than ours...what would you do? Would you be considered a terrorist or a soldier fighting for what you believe in and your liberation?

Understand me good... I want us to seek and capture Bin Ladin and bring him to crime for his war crimes and the bombing of the World Trade Center and other civilian locations. This man that was released was charged with bombing a military ship...that isn't terrorism. I hate it for the family and I'm sure they feel that a killer is being let to go free...but in this instance the man was acting as a soldier and not a terrorist. Obama was legally correct in releasing him for a prison meant to hold people involved in Terrorist activity.
Click to expand...

What war was the US engaged in when the USS Cole was bombed? What did the commander of the ship, or the crew do to the person who bombed the ship?
 



ROYAL BLUE said:
......still not man enough.:shame:
Click to expand...

If you mean hiding behind a computer ranting and raving like a b!tch about children because my world is crumbling before my eyes...no I'm not man enough.

Anytime you like, you can ask that question in person than you can meaure for yourself just how much of a man I'm.
 
ROYAL BLUE said:
Yes, we differ, but I too have a good reason and plenty of facts as to why I support the death penalty. What makes a son or daughter more valuable than the person they murdered?
Click to expand...

Only our Universal Creator can judge whose more valuable than whom, but I would still fight for my child not to suffer the death penalty. You on the other hand, seem to turn your back on your own flesh and blood based on scriptures you choose to follow and others you seem to ignore.
 
JayRob said:
Only our Universal Creator can judge whose more valuable than whom, but I would still fight for my child not to suffer the death penalty. You on the other hand, seem to turn your back on your own flesh and blood based on scriptures you choose to follow and others you seem to ignore.
Click to expand...

No, I just refuse to support murderers regardless of flesh and blood. I love my kids, but aint no way I'm bailing a murderer out of jail. If murdering other human beings aint a thang, then meeting the creator shouldn't be either; explain it to God.:saw:
 
bluedog said:
If you mean hiding behind a computer ranting and raving like a b!tch about children because my world is crumbling before my eyes...no I'm not man enough.

Anytime you like, you can ask that question in person than you can meaure for yourself just how much of a man I'm.
Click to expand...



Are the questions getting to you?
 
ROYAL BLUE said:
If Christ was not an advocate for the Death Penalty, then that would mean He was against God's law. If that be the case, then the verse below would make Christ a hypocrite because he boldly stated He's for all of God's law. How can Christ fulfil the law and be against the Death Penalty at the same time?


Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Click to expand...

Your interpretation of that Scrioture and understanding of Jesus differs greatly from mine. Jesus wanted to make it understood that he was not destroying God's law...one of the primary of which was thou shall not kill. Notice it didn't say murder it said kill, the two are not the same. Murder is the wrongful killing of an innocent...but the 10 Commandments instructed to not KILL which may or may not be an illegal act according to man's law. But God's law said "Thou Shalt Not Kill".

Anyway... Jesus wanted it understood that he was not come to destroy the Law of governance as ordered by God. He came to fulfill the intent of the law... that's why he said I come not to destroy but to seek and to save that which was lost.

The Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives but to save them. (Luke 9.56)


For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost. (Luke 19.10)


Jesus did not come to destroy us, but to save us. This is the promise of the Christmas story. For the angel of the Lord said to Joseph, "Do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins" (Matthew 1:20-21).

So again, your interpretation is different from mine and it seems differs from scripture. You see, the Law (Ten Commandments, etc) provided a means of telling man what were sins and what to avoid, but the laws couldn't save you from the sin. It was ineffective as simply following the Laws could not give you salvation through forgiveness. That's what Jesus meant when he stated that he came to fulfil the law... in other words to make complete what the Laws could not make possible, save man from sin.

The very name of Jesus, in its Hebrew form, Yeshua, means "Yahweh saves!" It comes from the Hebrew yasha, which means to rescue or remove someone from burden, oppression or danger.

Hope that helps...:lecture:
 
ROYAL BLUE said:
........maybe you should ask Saddam. Do dead folks talk?:no:
Click to expand...

I'm asking you. Please don't avoid the question like you normally do and make me ask it repeatedly before you answer it.

What did Iraq do to the United States of America for us to invade their country?
 
ToPdOg said:
I'm asking you. Please don't avoid the question like you normally do and make me ask it repeatedly before you answer it.

What did Iraq do to the United States of America for us to invade their country?
Click to expand...

They had oil... Our then administration with it's imperialist foreign policy coveted that oil and took actions to get it. I wonder if RB knows the Scriptural law about coveting?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top