WHAT DO U THINK ABOUT STALIN AND HITLER

[kazakh]

WHAT IS YOUR POINT OF VIEW ON THIS QUESTION/ WHAT GAVE TO THE WORLD THE TIME OF NAZIS/KOMMUNISTS[/b]

[Michael N. Ryan]

INTELLECTUALS.

The crackpot theories of Communism and National Socialism were the product of Well Educated individuals with plenty of imaginative ideas and no base of experience from which to develope them.

Liberals are very good at imagination but they have no idea on how unrealistic they are. Not a clue.

They merely decided What Aught To Be and implement as soon as they obtain the means to do so.

Whether it be Life Unworthy of Life which justified the Genocides of the Nazis or Agricultureal Collectivization which lead to the vast famines of the Soviet Union, these intellectuals were devoid of common sence and caused great suffering without achieving any good. These idiotic ideas didn't come from some group of uneducated red necks at a c---- burning rally. They're the ideas of academics.

One can look at the hairbrained rulings and hypocricy of the Supreme Court to know nobody has learned anything.

The promotion of the 'sexual revolution'. One need only look at Rome and ancient Greece and Carthage to know where that's going to take us.

One can also look at the Venerial Disease epidemics that ravaged the Polynesians after their first contact with western man.

The aboliton of the Death Penalty and softening of punishments of criminals so as to appeal to their better selves ( which don't exist). Every time law and order collapse Anarchy and disaster prevail.

Elimination of 'Gender Differences'. Look to the Neanderthal.

I mean what's the Difference between The Aryan of the National Socialists and Social Man of the Socialists? They're both Mythical creatures based on fantasy like Elves. One is supposed to be achieved through genetics. The other is a product of Environment. Millions of innnocent people are still being hurt in their efforts to achieve them.

[munchener]

Re.your statement on the death penalty If you do research on this properly you will discover that it<death penalty> has really no affect as a deterrent to the criminal,they will commit the crime whether the death penalty exists or not,and why some USA states use it<DP> or not depends on the people of the state who elect their governments,knowing their view on the <DP>anyway.In my country the death penalty was abolished in the 60s and besides how many INNOCENT prisoners died because of over zealous juries and judges just wanting blood,give me true freedom and democracy anyday and as far as DNA evidence is concerned thats scary if they rely soley on this method as it,s not 100% accurate Munchener

[Michael N. Ryan]

As of this date despite zealous searching Liberals have yet to find one innocent has been executed in these United States as far as this century is concerned. But Over forty million children have died before they can be born since the same anti-capital punishment supreme court decriminalized abortion.

And as far as the Death Penalty goes Its purpose is to rid society of evil. Executed Criminals don't repeat offend. Those released often do. If somebody is detered from committing a capitol offense, that's an extra dividend.

Many countries with low crime rates are often the ones with low birth rates and higher average ages. Problem is they're the ones in decline.

[Michael N. Ryan]

If you want to see what happens when society adopts harsh punishments to deal with miscreants, one need only look to the middle east. Countries that adopt the harsh islamic law punishments see their crime rates drop where they had previously applied our soft 'civilised' standards. Which in my opinion goes too far in many cases as the value of the punishment must not exceed the value of the crime, an eye for an eye no more no less. The islamic crowd usually exeeds that standard of justice.

One can also look to nazi Germany which adopted a draconial law system which punished many things very severely, crime was reduced basicly because the nazis were executing or incarcerating criminals which guarenteed fewer repeat offenders. Hitler was a criminal and he certainly knew far better in how to deal with his own kind as apposed to the more enlightened and educated. I despise the fiend but I give him that.

[munchener]

Maybe some kind person out there has the current statistics on the crime rate versus capital punishment in their city?It will be interesting to see whether or not it is a deterrent. For instance its a well known fact that a murderer is more than likely known by the victim and although our government has not and will not introduce the death penalty the serious crime offender does and will always comit crimes.I fully support capital punishment for serious crimes against society and I would be the first one to pull the lever or push the button and help rid society of these worthless types of scum.I have worked on jury service and believe me it's not that easy having the future of someones life in your hands.There is little room for error and you will always have the beyond reasonable doubt question that needs to be addressed.Munchener

[Michael N. Ryan]

That is a good point. A point best solved by insisting on higher standards of evidence. The Germans required Two Credable witnesses in order for the prosecution to seek the Death Sentence for a capitol offense. I would agree with that standard with the requirement of evidence of a corpse.

As for most murder victims knowing their murderers, that includes drug dealers and their suppliers as well as their addicts. That includes prostitues and both their pimps and their johns. And in many occasions victims are murdered by people in the same area where they live or where they work.

As I've said the purpose of Capital Punishment is to rid society of Evil. That is why I favor it. I favor it for: first degree murder, second degree murder when committed in conjunction with a felony, involuntary manslaughter under the same circumstances or when resulting from gross negligence such as drunk driving, along with anyone who is an accessory to the above actions, rape and kidnapping when committed in conjunction with a felony or in the case of a repeat offender, especially child molesters. Then there are huaman traffickers and drug dealers.

If it deters anyone from doing these bad things, that's extra dividend.

[Beppo Schmidt]

<death penalty> has really no affect as a deterrent to the criminal,they will commit the crime whether the death penalty exists or not

They won't commit the crime if they're dead.

As of this date despite zealous searching Liberals have yet to find one innocent has been executed in these United States as far as this century is concerned.

Right, there is no evidence of any innocent person being executed, at least not since safeguards were increased in the 1970s, and by the way, while sixty-nine supposedly innocent inmates have been released from death row since 1973, the Death Penalty Information Center offers no evidence of innocence in 78% of cases.

"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."

- John McAdams, Marquette University/Department of Political Science

[munchener]

It's all fine and good saying "Hang the bastards" and I agree,only if proven guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt.BUT before we go ahead <that's why a condemmed prisoner will serve years before the actual execution is carried out> this being given time to exhaust all avenues of appeal and to finally eliminate the Beyond reasonable doubt theory and perhaps prevent sending an innocent victim to his/her grave.When you sit on a jury and you have to make these decisions that will have a serious affect on the accused it is very daunting and at times not very pleasant,you see you are not only dealing with the accused but you will see his/her family in the court and you will be looking at them and they look at you.Premeditated murder is different than a killing in a brawl and should be treated accordingly.As far as the drunk driver, well he/she wouldn't have a clue what he did until someone tells him/her so why sentence he/she to death?Most of these drink drive offenders do rehabilitate and are responsible members of the community.You can't take an 18 year old who got drunk drove the car home<foolishly>and was involved in an accident caused a death <maybe the accident wasn't his/her fault>and either throw him/her in jail for the rest of their life or put them on death row.Whatever happened to Justice and the presumtion of innocent until proven guilty?This seems to be quietly slipping away from us without even realising it.If you want to see what I'm talking about sit in on a trial one day or maybe even better sign up for jury service. Munchener

[Beppo Schmidt]

I have never heard of a drunk driver being put on death row.

[Michael N. Ryan]

I am sorry to say that I have yet to hear of a drunk driver ending up on death row. A couple of times Prosecutors have tried. Certainly there is legal precedent since people have been executed for killing while in a state of inebriation. But Judges have quashed each try.

Most drunk drivers don't care if they hurt anyone. The Phrase 'So What' seems to be a common attitude. Shocking. I've heard from people who have lost people they care about.

If you drink you drive and kill somebody you should pay the maximum price. That should include those who drive while using drugs.

For those who are lucky enough not to kill anyone, I would like to bring back Flogging. Let fifty lashes sober up a few. Let them remember thepain of their flesh ripped from their backs sit in their mind if the thought of what might happen if they hit somebody won't.

[goldilocks]

I think that extreme poverty led to the rise of Stalin and Hitler. In those days the Russians were ruled by a small group of Royals who lived in great wealth, while the majority of the population were poor and suffered great hardships in their lives. In the case of Hitler, after the First World War, Germany was bankrupt and and their money was worthless. They also suffered extreme hardships. THese were the main factors that led to the rise of Stanlin and Hitler.

[Michael N. Ryan]

Russia was controlled by a corrupt elite who were bent on preserving their privalages by force, much like the French auristocracy was before the French Revolution. Germany was pretty much smashed by the world depression, but it also had a lot of anger from being what they felt was a betrayal by Woodrow Wilson and his crowd and their misuse by the allies.

It takes more than poverty to make a revolution, it takes a total absence of HOPE for better times to come on top of poverty. WHich pretty much describes the condiion of Russia under the Czars and Germany after Versailles. The Weimar Republic pretty much shot itself to pieces with the chaos it could not control on top of the stigma of being a Collaborationist government.

[goldilocks]

LET'S HOPE THAT MANKIND LEARNS FROM THE PAST AND DOESN'T REPEAT HISTORY. "THOSE WHO FORGET THE PAST ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT" LUCKILY FOR US WE LIVE IN MODERN TIMES. WE NO LONGER HAVE A SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE RULING OVER US. THE RISE OF COMMUNISM AND NAZISIM AND THE FRENCH REVOLUTION WAS DUE TO THE INEQUALITY WHICH EXISTED.

[Michael N. Ryan]

These things happened because the elite of their countries had ideology based on beliefs contrary to Human Nature. Ironicly this ideology is called 'Humanism'. In their efforts to make their beliefs reality these elites went to extremes to change things. Needless to say, they failed. And the price has been bloody.

Unfortunately, nobody has learned anything, especially in modern Western Civilization. Crime is rising and population is in decline. The same can be said of civility. The only countries who can claim their national crime rates are going down or not growing are those whose average age is rising due to a declining birth rate.

Many claim that they have achieved Stability. Certainly I would say that this 'stability' has come at a price too high. These 'stable' countries are now in decline.