| Matty And Linda 03.01.2007 18:28 |
thanks for replying people, he is a get though, i cant stand horrible ignorant people like that, he can sit there and smirk all he wants about the attention thing, this is prob all the attention he gets in life ever. Everyone else on here seems nice and normal just one or two have to spoil it. and for his reading i am not a leech just a busy hard working person who doesnt take things too seriously. |
| Carol! the Musical 03.01.2007 18:32 |
Whoooooooops. |
| thomasquinn 32989 03.01.2007 18:34 |
Topic starter is a very sad, whiny person indeed. If you can't take it, toss off from the forum. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 03.01.2007 18:37 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: If you can't take it, toss off from the forum.Or just ignore it and enjoy the rest this forum has to offer. |
| thomasquinn 32989 03.01.2007 18:42 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:I enjoy telling people what they need to hear. My previous post here was just that.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: If you can't take it, toss off from the forum.Or just ignore it and enjoy the rest this forum has to offer. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 03.01.2007 19:13 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:I wonder if you don't enjoy it too much... though whatever the case, I simply thought I'd add my opinion to the pile, and my previous post here was just that.magicalfreddiemercury wrote:I enjoy telling people what they need to hear. My previous post here was just that.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: If you can't take it, toss off from the forum.Or just ignore it and enjoy the rest this forum has to offer. |
| Matty And Linda 03.01.2007 19:14 |
thanks i will ignore him. |
| Maz 03.01.2007 19:17 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:I agree. I fail to understand why people "need" to be told that they deserve death, which is usually where your comments end up.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:I wonder if you don't enjoy it too much... though whatever the case, I simply thought I'd add my opinion to the pile, and my previous post here was just that.magicalfreddiemercury wrote:I enjoy telling people what they need to hear. My previous post here was just that.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: If you can't take it, toss off from the forum.Or just ignore it and enjoy the rest this forum has to offer. |
| thomasquinn 32989 04.01.2007 06:31 |
Zeni wrote:If you can't read, sure. I'd have thought better of you. Sadly, I was wrong. Oh well, can't win 'em all.magicalfreddiemercury wrote:I agree. I fail to understand why people "need" to be told that they deserve death, which is usually where your comments end up.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:I wonder if you don't enjoy it too much... though whatever the case, I simply thought I'd add my opinion to the pile, and my previous post here was just that.magicalfreddiemercury wrote:I enjoy telling people what they need to hear. My previous post here was just that.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: If you can't take it, toss off from the forum.Or just ignore it and enjoy the rest this forum has to offer. |
| Maz 04.01.2007 11:13 |
You make no sense, Caspar. But, by all means, please try to isult me some more. Seems that's all you are capable of these days. Life was so much nicer around QZ when you were too busy in school and before you went on winter break and felt that people "needed" to be told what you think of them. Oh well, can't win them all. By the way, still waiting for your explanation of the "unconstitutionality" of the death penalty. Or would you just prefer to admit you were wrong now and save us all the trouble. It's ok, I'll forgive you. |
| thomasquinn 32989 04.01.2007 11:43 |
What about Amendment VIII? Prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. A moratorium was instituted in '76 because of this, New York has abolished the death penalty because it was ruled unconstitutional on this count (2004), same for Kansas and California. They do not rule something as 'unconstitutional' for nothing, you know. |
| Jjeroen 04.01.2007 11:57 |
Matty And Linda wrote: thanks for replying people, he is a get though, i cant stand horrible ignorant people like that, he can sit there and smirk all he wants about the attention thing, this is prob all the attention he gets in life ever. Everyone else on here seems nice and normal just one or two have to spoil it. and for his reading i am not a leech just a busy hard working person who doesnt take things too seriously.And we should just GUESS who this is all about? |
| PieterMC 04.01.2007 12:52 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: What about Amendment VIII? Prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. A moratorium was instituted in '76 because of this, New York has abolished the death penalty because it was ruled unconstitutional on this count (2004), same for Kansas and California. They do not rule something as 'unconstitutional' for nothing, you know.I wish I was as smart as you. You know everything. |
| its_a_hard_life 26994 04.01.2007 12:58 |
PieterMC wrote:Me too!!!!!!! :-P<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: What about Amendment VIII? Prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. A moratorium was instituted in '76 because of this, New York has abolished the death penalty because it was ruled unconstitutional on this count (2004), same for Kansas and California. They do not rule something as 'unconstitutional' for nothing, you know.I wish I was as smart as you. You know everything. |
| Maz 04.01.2007 13:16 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: What about Amendment VIII? Prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. A moratorium was instituted in '76 because of this, New York has abolished the death penalty because it was ruled unconstitutional on this count (2004), same for Kansas and California. They do not rule something as 'unconstitutional' for nothing, you know.A - That's not what you said the first time. You said "Your constitution guarantees the "Right To Life", as it was expressed in the Declaration Of Independence already, and so violates her own laws by executing people" - that is blatantly wrong. Now you've changed your argument. B - Amendment V clearly states that no person shall "be deprived of life...without due process of law," which would then allow for the death penalty. C - While a moratorium on the death penalty did occur, it has since be reinstated by the Supreme Court. The Court can and does change its opinion from time to time. Also, Kansas, California, and New York all allow the death penalty, so I'm not sure where you heard they did not. A state might rule it "unconstitutional," but that means it goes against their own state constitution and not the federal constitution, which is what your argument is based on. Better luck next time, Caspar. |
| thomasquinn 32989 04.01.2007 14:38 |
Zeni wrote:You are years behind, really<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: What about Amendment VIII? Prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. A moratorium was instituted in '76 because of this, New York has abolished the death penalty because it was ruled unconstitutional on this count (2004), same for Kansas and California. They do not rule something as 'unconstitutional' for nothing, you know.A - That's not what you said the first time. You said "Your constitution guarantees the "Right To Life", as it was expressed in the Declaration Of Independence already, and so violates her own laws by executing people" - that is blatantly wrong. Now you've changed your argument. B - Amendment V clearly states that no person shall "be deprived of life...without due process of law," which would then allow for the death penalty. C - While a moratorium on the death penalty did occur, it has since be reinstated by the Supreme Court. The Court can and does change its opinion from time to time. Also, Kansas, California, and New York all allow the death penalty, so I'm not sure where you heard they did not. A state might rule it "unconstitutional," but that means it goes against their own state constitution and not the federal constitution, which is what your argument is based on. Better luck next time, Caspar. New York Unconstitutional Ruling: link Kansas: No executions since '76, though FORMALLY it would be said to exist California Moratorium: link Better luck next time, Zeni |
| Maz 04.01.2007 14:53 |
Keep trying, Caspar. Too many of your claims are either flat out wrong, or taken out of context. link Calfornia - 657 inmates on death row Kansas - 9 New York - 1 New York - link "New York’s highest court has ruled that a provision of the state’s capital punishment statute violates the state constitution" Again, it is against the state's constitution, not the federal constitution as you so incorrectly argued. California, I quote from the article you linked - "A federal judge who imposed a moratorium on executions in California ruled Friday that the state's method of lethal injection is unconstitutional because it violates the ban on cruel and unusual punishment." The ruling is that lethal injection is wrong, not the death penalty. Kansas - "No executions since '76, though FORMALLY it would be said to exist" 9 people would say otherwise. link It will be at this point that you either ignore the thread and not respond anymore or lay into me with personal insults. Try something new for once and admit a mistake, Caspar. It's not that hard. |
| PieterMC 04.01.2007 14:55 |
Technically New York still has the death penalty. It has never been abolished in that state. True there is a court ordered moratorium in effect but it has never been abolished. link |
| thomasquinn 32989 04.01.2007 14:58 |
Kansas: inmates and executions are a difference. California: now that there's a moratorium, there is a discussion to finish it altogether, check the news-archives. New York: the state constitution has to be in line with federal constitution. Does show the death penalty is kinda fucked up. Fine, you're right that the federal constitution doesn't explicitly forbid it, but the way you're making it look like I'm lying is very childish, especially as people can see for themselves that I'm right with the articles provided. That is very, very sad of you. |
| PieterMC 04.01.2007 14:59 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Fine, you're right that the federal constitution doesn't explicitly forbid it, but the way you're making it look like I'm lying is very childish, especially as people can see for themselves that I'm right with the articles provided. That is very, very sad of you.That made me laugh out loud. Thanks for the laugh Thomas. Of course your right. Your always right. |
| Maz 04.01.2007 15:03 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Fine, you're right that the federal constitution doesn't explicitly forbid it, but the way you're making it look like I'm lying is very childish, especially as people can see for themselves that I'm right with the articles provided. That is very, very sad of you.Ha! I never said you were lying; I said you were wrong, as even your own articles point out. If you want to pretend that you know it all, then you better know it all before you say things out here. As for looking childish, that makes me smile, especially coming from you. You are a bully, Caspar, and every once in a while people need to stand up to your baseless claims. If the best you can do is call me childish, then so be it. |
| thomasquinn 32989 04.01.2007 15:15 |
Baseless? Have you even READ the articles? I doubt it, by the sound of it. |
| Maz 04.01.2007 16:23 |
I was referring to your initial claim, which you have since stated was incorrect. Your subsequent statements are not baseless, which I concede, rather they are taken out of context. For instance, Kansas has not executed anyone since 1976, but between 1976 and 1994, Kansas had no death penalty. Considering how long the appeals process plays out, it is not surprising that Kansas has yet to execute anyone in the last 12 years. That's an important fact that you failed to mention. I have said it before and I'll say it again: you are an intellegent person, Caspar, but you do not know everything. If you would actually take the time to discuss issues, rather than dictate opinion and insults, people would find you more appealing. But that means dropping the tough guy stance. |