John Prezioso

Well, I have Teamspeak set up and got to tool around with some of my new fleetmates on the public server. I plan on starting my training ASAP and getting up to speed in a hurry. Thanks to all who invited me in and made me feel welcome. I hope to see some of you tonight after 1:00 AM Central time, when I'll be available for learning the ropes.

I was just there 2 weeks ago with my parents while visiting them on vacation! Jeez, you can't go ANYWHERE anymore!

GRRR!!! These terrorists NEED killing SO BAD!!!!

That is an interesting stance Darkling, and it indeed has merit. I know I for one would NOT like being wrongfully accused and put to death when I was innocent. The fallibility of the system is undeniable, as it set up by man. I too cringe at the thought of an innocent man being put to death. Some points to consider: - Our punitive system is based on the premise that it is better for 10 guilty men to go free than 1 innocent man to be punished. This would be a tough concept for someone who does not believe in God, as they must see this as a guilty man completely escaping judgement. Alas, we know that ultimately, EVERYONE faces true judgement... - In my study of the issue, I have found that in every case I have reviewed of an innocent man being put to death, a key piece of evidence or testimony was withheld by an important witness or investigator. Information of the kind that would have completely changed the outcome of the trial. In my opinion, the individual involved of the withholding of evidence or testimony, not the system, is the cause of the error. In my estimation, these individuals are guilty of murder just as if they would have shot the accused to death themselves. Admittedly, being Catholic, I am not in keeping with Roman Catholic dogma on this, as the Pope has stated that capital punishment should be discouraged in any society. The Church is against the death penalty. I usually defer to the Vatican on these issues, but this is one of few issues where I differ from them.

Well, I do not have team speak set up yet. Do you want to start with that first?

Right on Jag. Despite his offensive and insulting posts, Street did make one argument I can consider a valid point. I have fielded this argument many times before. What he was saying specifically about the death penalty is that in his view, any Christian that views the death penalty and war as viable choices is warping the Bible's message of "Thou shalt not kill" and a parallel can be drawn between that kind of "interpretation of convenience" and what Islamo-fascist murderers do with the Koran when they blow up innocent children in the name of Allah (or so they claim). To take this view, one would have to subscribe to the erroneous idea that the Bible prohibits death as a form of punishment. When a man kills another man out of anger, it is murder. It is such because the killing was done without due process ; in other words, simply for satisfaction and revenge with no regard for justice. In a legal framework, due process comes in the form of a jury of one's peers with a judge presiding ensuring the Constitution (and NOT necessarily the LAW) is followed. In a national view, due process comes in the form of a legal proclamation of war by the nation's leaders once cause for hostility has been established. Absolutely NO parallel can be drawn with terrorism because of the simple fact that it is driven by hate and fanaticism, with evil at its core. The terrorists are bloodthirsty animals who know they are evil. Anyone who tries to claim any sort of social or economic reasons for terrorism is only falling prey to their evil deception imo. Anyway, regardless of anyone's stance, I hope this and future discussions can be conducted with a mutual respect between us. EDIT: SC, I posted this before I saw your request. I am sorry if it is not in compliance with your wishes and will refrain in the future.

Hmmm. I seem to remember feeling that way, but honestly, I think it passes with time. I tend to get a little jaded with all of the games out there, the crap that goes on with pubs, the disappointing releases, lack of innovation, etc. Then I typically fall back on some ole standbys. For me, they are X-com and Thief. For you, it's UC. I always find something that brings me back though, maybe you will, too. The last time I felt that way, Battlefield Vietnam and Joint Ops sort of brought me back around...

Hurry back!!

LOL! I try not to swear to often!

That was... amusing. ALRIGHT ALRIGHT... IT WAS FREAKING HYSTERICAL!!!!

Face it Street. You are an offensive, antagonistic person. You can not have a civil discussion without incessantly bombarding people with: 1) Proof of how much better you are than everyone else 2) reason upon reason as to how if someone does not believe EXACTLY as you do, they are a Nazi, a neandrathal, A heretic etc. You deal in asinine absolutes with you at the center safely tucked away beyond reproach. I say this not to attack you (and I am sure a hypocritical, heretical, primitive Nazi like myself couldn't ever offend anyone as superior as yourself) but to enlighten you to something you are obviously painfully oblivious to. It is not enough for you to just say that you are right. You have to demean every aspect of everyone else's core beliefs in order to make your point. What is so sad is that I sense a powerful intellect behind all of the hate speech and vitriol, and probably would find a great deal of interest in debating you on FACTS. Alas you are too much of a child, and that is not possible. (And yes, I am aware of your age, but as we know, age and maturity are often inversely proportional...) You might try looking at a history of NOMAD's posts for how to debate from your position without being demeaning and insulting. In closing, I would like to apologize to everyone insulted by STREET's hysterical ranting, as I feel partially responsible since I was the one who opened this thread. In the future, I will be ignoring Street's posts, and recommend that others offended by his childishness do the same.

Alas, She was givin' it all she had, Cap'n! Rest in peace.

Well RACE, if you don't see eye to eye with those mentioned, I imagine we would not agree on much in the pols threads either. But I like the show AND beer!!!

quote: Originally posted by Jaguar: LIS, another thing that you seem to forget, a jury can IGNORE a judges instructions in ANY way they want.LIS, another thing that you seem to forget, a jury can IGNORE a judges instructions in ANY way they want. A jurist is EQUAL to the judge in power when it comes to a decision in a courtroom. THe judge just continues the proceedings and keeps them going, a Juror is the TRUE power within that courtroom. A juror can ignore ANY instructions from a judge, and can reference ANYTHING that they like in order to make a decision. This is a legal fact, no matter HOW guilty a person is, if a jurist feels that the law that the accused broke is immoral, a bad law, or just stupid, the jurist can, and has the responsibility to find the accused NOT GUILTY. Jaguar, you hit the nail on the head. Outstanding! This exact point is made by the founding fathers in explaining how the proposed judicial system would work. I have been hoping someone else would bring this up! The judges have NO POWER TO DO WHAT THEY DID!! What comes out of that deliberation room is as good as LAW!!!!! So the real issue here, imo, is just another case of an out of control judiciary, once again unconstitutionally expanding its own powers. It's time for some checks and balances, I would say...

No worries. I am a very introverted person when it comes spirituality and would never force my beliefs on someone else. Truth be told, I am usually quite timid about speaking out much on spiritual matters at all, since I am nowhere near the "ideal" Christian.

LOL! Exactly right, Darkling!

GRATZ!!!!

Would someone kindly show me where the Bible tells us we cannot sit in righteous judgement of others? Caution- It is NOT the passage about casting the first stone, nor is it the decree that we should "judge not, lest ye be judged." I will answer the unspoken questions now. When Jesus saw the men who were there to stone the prostitute to death, in His omnipitence he realized that those who there to punish her were the same ones who HELPED her commit the sins. Jesus' statement about casting the first stone was a condemnation of their hypocracy. The passage about not judging lest ye be judged does not say "Do not sit in judgement." Notice, it only conveys the idea that if you are not righteous, then you have no business sitting in judgement of those like yourself. Being judged is not a bad thing - IF you are righteous. As humans, we are all imperfect, thus NO ONE is beyond failure, but through the grace of Jesus' suffering, we only need to acknowledge Him for salvation. There is a bit more too it, such as trying to be "Christ-like", but NO ONE is ever going to achieve that goal. One should still strive for it, however... I apologize if I sound too preachy! This is MY understanding of relevant passages from what was taught to me in school.

Thank you, Lost. Finally, a topc-relevant question. For me it would be difficult to separate the Bible from the argument because the real issue here is whether people who use the Bible (God's word) as a guide to their actions should be allowed to partake in civic duty. All too many people believe that Christians are incapable of being "fair" because of their 'fanatacism'. More importantly, the issue could be considered a matter of the Court being suspicious of people who don't necessarily consider the Court to be the highest authority. To answer your question, admittedly without full knowledge of exactly what took place in the deliberation room, I would say the jury did NOT do anything illegal, nor did they do anything to "screw the pooch" . When deciding on something as profound as sentencing another man to death, what else would a religous person do EXCEPT consult the highest authority? Consulting outside(and potentially biased) sources of information like the internet is in a different category than consulting a Bible in my opinion. Let me ask you a question: Would you feel it wrong if the jury admitted that they prayed for God's guidance in their decision?

Street, I'd like to thank you for posting at least some points of merit, and not clogging your ENTIRE post with self-important rhetoric. Of course, you could not make it all the way without baseless, antagonistic, and ultimatelly incorrect accusations of someone you don't know and have never met. Unlike you, I always respect others with whom I am debating, and do not casually throw around terms like "You have blood on your hands" and "you have revenge in your heart" as you do (But I am the one who only CLAIMS to be Christian - funny, that...) I am glad you are a Christian, but your understanding of scripture is suspect, imo. I do not claim to speak for God, nor do I expect that God likes to see ANY war, be it in His name or not. You are simply incapable of discussing ANY topic without letting your ridiculous, sad obsession with Bush/Conservative-bashing fly free from your fingertips. Congratulations for Hijacking yet another thread with your blind single-mindedness on putting down people with opposing viewpoints. It is getting annoying, to say the least.

I can really see Boyd's point, but I have to agree with Remo. The only thing you can do if you don't approve of these shows is not watch it, and ensure your children are not exposed to what you consider offensive. I actually like the show, but could do without some of the more gratuitous stuff. Go figure...

Nice try street. You are completely wrong on ALL counts however. 1) The given passage IS in reference to taxes, true, but this and other passages clearly tell Christians that they have a MORAL obligation to uphold the laws they are bound to in society. Jesus was making an over-arching proclamation of His policy on civic duty. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, render unto God what is God's" tells us that as citizens we follow the rule of governments, but as people of God, we follow the rule of God. It shouldn't have to be stated which takes precedence. You will NOT win this one, I am afraid... quote: Second, I have NEVER implied I was superior to the REST of those on this board.2) Your constant condescension to me and others who might disagree with you proves you totally and utterly wrong... AGAIN. While you never personally attack, your posts are replete with hateful and antagonistic rhetoric intended to insult anyone who disagrees with you, supports Bush, and is pro-death penalty. quote:Many shall call upon my name......I know them not. sound familiar? 3) Becuase we don't adhere to your paranoid obsession, we can't be Christians, huh? Who are YOU to judge what we are? So Christians can't sit in judgement of a murderer because they defer to Biblical principals, but you can sit in judgement of Christians who don't subscribe to your short-sighted interpretation of Scripture? Your hypocracy is evident, as usual.

Damn-ran out of time to edit... Street: What is "extreme" about putting a man to death for the rape and murder of an innocent woman? The Bible, not me, is what decrees the penalty for this is death. By the teachings of Christ, we are required to forgive this man, true, but that is completelty separate from "justice". "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's..." Remember this line? The Bible tells us as Christians we have a moral obligation to do exactly what our civic duties dictate. (i.e. use the evidence above all else to determine innocent or guilt and punishment). Christians imo make the BEST jurors. And for the love of all that is holy, please do not hijack this thread with another diatribe on Iraq, Bush, and your superiority to the rest of us.

quote:Chicken ROFLMAO!!!

Yeah, and I bet a few regulars here will be glued to the TV!!!