?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry


1. Why is everybody always picking on me?

My head is dangling down to my ankles. Why? Because of my prior post which caused many to gnaw at my throat? It's a good thing I have the endurance of a saint, a great sense of humor, nerves of steel, a heart of stone, and the hide of a crocodile! Oh well, what the heh, heh, heh...

2. Abortion – President Obama, and Notre Dame

Sorry, but the fundamentals of Christianity do not only cover the killing of the unborn, but of the living, too.

Those who are in an uproar about the killing of unborn babies, should also be in an uproar to abolish the death penalty. I am a Catholic. I am Pro-Life, because if I ever became pregnant, I would NEVER, EVER kill my baby. I am Pro-Choice, because women, not the government, have
the right to choose.

Plaster pics of aborted babies all over the place, so that those girls and women contemplating abortion will see the horror of a baby's tiny body ripped to shreds. Also, plaster pictures of actual electrocutions of men and women having their eyeballs melt down their cheeks. I personally consider abortion and the death penalty an act of murder, because both are helpless at the time they are being put to death.

Life is life. If your views come from a Christian's perspective - To be for the death penalty, and against abortion, is utter hypocrisy! Life is precious. The unborn baby, and the lowliest of criminals on death row (give them life without parole), have a right to life. The only time one has a right to take away the life of another is when one's own life is in danger, be it from an intruder, or in times of war.

I recently bought another firearm; a Ladysmith 60LS revolver.

3. Little by little, I'll be posting pics from my recent trip to Monterrey - Nuevo León, and of my trip to Washington, D.C.






Moveon.ORG



Join The NRA
"The Right Of The People To Keep and
Bear Arms, Shall Not Be infringed."!

Comments

( 35 comments — Leave a comment )
neo_prodigy
May. 16th, 2009 10:32 pm (UTC)
Excellent post and very awesome pics!
playgirl
May. 17th, 2009 01:26 am (UTC)
I'm glad you liked them, and thank you!
drake57
May. 16th, 2009 10:46 pm (UTC)
Abortion isn't my choice and i'll never tell any woman what she can and cannot do with her body. Government and someone's Religon has no right to tell anyone what they can do or can't do in their private life.
*HUGS for the rough time Amiga*

Great pics. :)
daddy
May. 16th, 2009 11:05 pm (UTC)
Oh come now....
You know we love you to pieces even though some of us cannot understand how you can be decieved by Moveon.crap and Huffington compost as well as the liberal media.

You never need to hand your head, always keep it up and high so everyone can see your smile and bright eyes.

I am not catholic but I do believe Live begins at conception. I do feel that abortrion is murder, but there are certain instances that it might be necessary, to save the life of the Mother.

I hope you bought a few bricks of shells for the 60LS, thats a nice piece.. ID hate to see you have to pay 500% tax on your shells like Obama wants to do.
playgirl
May. 17th, 2009 01:21 am (UTC)
Re: Oh come now....
I know it Daddy! And I also realize that some of my way of thinking gets you red hot angry. I would give TWO of my gumball machines to see your face on those occasions! :o)

Oh yes, yes, yes! My 60LS revolver is quite a beauty, and yes, I have enough shells for it to last me a lifetime.
playgirl
May. 17th, 2009 01:26 am (UTC)
Thank you for the much needed hugs Sweet Pie!

I'll post some more soon.
chanbot
May. 16th, 2009 11:13 pm (UTC)
I definitely agree that if I were in a personal instance where I had input as to whether or not an abortion would occur I would speak against it, however I completely support the woman's right to choose.
playgirl
May. 17th, 2009 01:13 am (UTC)
it should be ...
I feel the exact same way. I would try everything in my powere to talk the woman out of having one. If she chooses to have one, or no, it should be her choice and nobody elses (government).
donchep
May. 17th, 2009 12:00 am (UTC)
Que bonita ciudad de Monterrey. Aunque casi soy chilango por mi padre que fue criado en Tepito en D.F. quisiera tener raices en tan hermosa ciudad.
playgirl
May. 17th, 2009 01:05 am (UTC)
Ay, caramba!
Lamentó, que llegué el mismo tiempo de esa tan horrible enfermedad, y no tuve la oportunidad de subir al Cerro de la Silla.

Son pocos los fotos que tomé, y en realidad no son muy interesantes, pero los pondré aqui para compartier.

Tengo muchos deseos de algun dia ir a España porque tengo raices de parte de mi abuela alli. Pienso que algún día lo lograre de ir. Tambien en Lebanon por parte de mi padre, pero sé que nunca podré ir allí.

En poco tiempo me ire a Nicaragua, y despues de unas cuantas semanas a Paraguay, y con mi camara de seguro! :o)

Ay, caramba! Que linda es la gente de Nuevo León, Mexico!!
uglyface2
May. 17th, 2009 04:16 am (UTC)
1. Why is everybody always picking on me?

Boo hoo, when does the hurting stop?

Seriously, politics is vicious. Invest too much of yourself in it, and you'll get torn to shreds.

Those who are in an uproar about the killing of unborn babies, should also be in an uproar to abolish the death penalty.

I disagree. I strongly believe that opposing abortion and favoring the death penalty (such a strong term, favoring, I don't relish the idea) are both predicated on protecting the value of life. Sound like doublespeak? Let me explain.

When you execute a murderer, you aren't just punishing them. You are also exacting a payment owed for the life of the person that was murdered. The murder itself created a debt; the person whose life was taken is now owed something in return.

The question to be asked is, what is the value of the life of an innocent human being? I believe that it is such a high value that nothing other than the life of the murderer in exchange can compensate for the loss. Therefore, prison sentences, even life sentences, devalue the life that was taken.

The only time one has a right to take away the life of another is when one's own life is in danger, be it from an intruder, or in times of war.

Perhaps we should plaster pictures of shooting victims around your home?
tigron_x
May. 25th, 2009 04:09 am (UTC)
"When you execute a murderer, you aren't just punishing them. You are also exacting a payment owed for the life of the person that was murdered. The murder itself created a debt; the person whose life was taken is now owed something in return."


Owed to whom? Made a debt to whom?


uglyface2
May. 25th, 2009 04:39 am (UTC)
To the person whose life was taken.
tigron_x
May. 26th, 2009 01:58 pm (UTC)
Well, that dead invidual can't enact payment. So, how is there a debt?
uglyface2
May. 26th, 2009 04:32 pm (UTC)
Let me turn this around on you and ask, why punish anyone for murder in any regards if the dead cannot enact payment?
tigron_x
May. 26th, 2009 05:34 pm (UTC)
First, let me point out that 'punishment' implies that the subject will learn to refrain from a particular behavior by associating pain with such behavior. If you go and kill the offender, then it's no longer punishment.

With that said, punishing a murder is enacted to protect the community from future transgressions. Furthermore, a prision is an institute expected to rehabilitate offenders.

If there is any debt owed, then it is to the family, and not to the dead individual.
uglyface2
May. 26th, 2009 07:42 pm (UTC)
I disagree on your definition of punishment. Rehabilitation is a possible benefit of incarceration, but it is not the entire purpose of the criminal justice system to rehabilitate criminals. I'll get right back to this point in a moment.

The debt accrued through the act of murder is owed to the victim. If this were not true, then there would be no need to investigate the death of, say, an old man with no family. Nobody would be owed anything for his murder, as there would be no "beneficiary" of the payment.

It's the same way with any other crime. If you were held up at gunpoint and robbed, and the police caught the criminal and returned all of the money that was stolen, the robber would still be indebted to you for the actual act of robbery.

Borrowing from John Locke, society has granted to the state the ability to collect on criminal debts. The reason why you do not punish the robber yourself is because that has been delegated to the justice system. The same is true of the murdered old man without a family; his debt is to be collected by the state.

This is why the criminal justice system exists. The debt owed to a person when a criminal act is committed against them is collected through the courts. Depending on what act has been committed, a just amount of penalty is inflicted on the perpetrator. In the robber's case, he would be sentenced the appropriate amount for having stuck a gun in your face. In a murderer's case, the appropriate amount must be commensurate with the act of murder; and here you ask, what is the value of the life taken? I have already stated my position, so there is no need to continue.
tigron_x
May. 28th, 2009 05:59 pm (UTC)
Not entirely true. An investigation would be mandatory regardless of who the victim is because those in office have a duty to perform in a certain capacity, be it Sheriff, Judge, Mayor, and so on. In other words, those in office have a duty to the community they have jurisdiction over.

It is an officer's duty to investigate any and all crimes within their jurisdiction in order to protect the community. Furthermore, as most of the people of a community are citizens (i.e. members) of a society, that officer is mandated to investigate any and all crimes in order to protect the members of the society.

The murder, if brought to trial, is brought before the judge to answer for his transgressions against the society, and not necessarily the victim. That's why he's charged with the violation of a statute, and not the violation of the victim. The victim is either a witness to the crime, or if it's a dead body, then material evidence to the crime.

In your example robbery case, even after the perp. has been prosecuted in a criminal hearing, the victim can still file civil suit against the robber, even if all material items have been returned. That's why on the court docket for the "criminal" offense states: State vs Robber. And not, Victim vs Robber. In the State vs Robber "criminal" case, violation of statutes are listed because the robber has transgressed against the society. And in the civil case, Victim vs Robber, the charges stated are of monetary or material wealth that the victim is holding against the robber.

uglyface2
May. 28th, 2009 07:48 pm (UTC)
I maintain that if a criminal debt was not accrued, then there would be no need to investigate. The duty of the police is indeed to watch over the communities for which they are charged; however, their duty comes in the form of apprehending and processing those accused of accruing a criminal debt. The police cannot act until some debt has been incurred.

The problem here is that the crimes are not against society, they are against an individual. As I said before, government has been delegated the duty of collecting on criminal debt. Statutes are in place to assist in standardizing the treatment of the accused. A violation of a statute is obstensibly a violation of a person or persons.

As for civil damages, I've made the distinction between civil debt and criminal debt. In the robbery case, you cannot collect damages on the actions of the robber; you can, however, attempt to sue on the grounds of non-criminal damages created as a result of his actions. It's a fine line distinction, but one that happens all the time in law.
tigron_x
May. 29th, 2009 06:49 am (UTC)
Mrs. Plum in the Library with the Revolver
First off, "criminal debt" and "civil debt" are not even legal terms.

Secondly, the police do not act until they have reasonable suspicion that a criminal or civil infracture has occured, not a debt. Do you know what an infracture is? It's a breach of contract. All members of a society are bound by a contract. A violation of statute is a breach of that contract.

And yes, the perp. does eventually accrue a debt, however, your initial argument was that it was owed to the victim. And I was simply pointing out the paradox of such a notion because the victim is deceased. In other words, he ceases to exist! He cannot possibly enact payment, therefore no debt to the victim is accrued because he is kaput! There is no one to pay!

The investigation, however, occurs because of the infracture against the society, and not because of some debt you've imagined is owed to the victim. And a dead body on the ground with a knife in its back, for example, is a big clue that a criminal infracture occured. It's in the best interest of the society to find out who did it in order to prevent it from happening to anyone else.

The judge determines the Defendant's debt for the infracture against the society at sentencing. To whom does the guilty party pay the debt? To the society or the community, not the victim of the crime.

The beneficiary of justice is the living, not the dead. The dead get nothing from our justice system.

    In the robbery case, you cannot collect damages on the actions of the robber; you can, however, attempt to sue on the grounds of non-criminal damages created as a result of his actions. It's a fine line distinction, but one that happens all the time in law.


I don't know what law books you're looking into, but if a robber breaks into my home, then I can most certainly sue him for the damages he did during the "criminal" act.

You even contradict yourself: "you cannot collect damages on the actions of the robber... [collect on] damages created as a result of his actions."

uglyface2
May. 29th, 2009 03:56 pm (UTC)
Re: Mrs. Plum in the Library with the Revolver
First off, "criminal debt" and "civil debt" are not even legal terms.

Of course not. We're dealing in political theory right now.

And yes, the perp. does eventually accrue a debt, however, your initial argument was that it was owed to the victim. And I was simply pointing out the paradox of such a notion because the victim is deceased. In other words, he ceases to exist! He cannot possibly enact payment, therefore no debt to the victim is accrued because he is kaput! There is no one to pay! ...etc.

In ancient times, the family of the victim would be responsible for collecting on the debt created by the murderer; since then, the social contract has moved the burden from the family to the state. I think we're going around in circles on this point, as you believe the debt rests with the state and not with the victim, whereas I believe the debt, which initially belongs to the victim, is only delegated to the state as a result of the social contract. We'll have to agree to disagree, because we're repeating ourselves and not really getting anywhere.

I don't know what law books you're looking into, but if a robber breaks into my home, then I can most certainly sue him for the damages he did during the "criminal" act.

We agree, then. You can't sue him for breaking and entering (the criminal act is handled by the state), but you can sue him for the damages caused while in the act, i.e., a damaged doorway and stolen property. Where's the contradiction?
tigron_x
May. 31st, 2009 02:56 am (UTC)
Re: Mrs. Plum in the Library with the Revolver
"Where's the contradiction?"


Maybe it was just the way you wrote it because the perps actions imply damages.
ormembar
May. 17th, 2009 07:11 am (UTC)
Como ha cambiado la ciudad! hace años que no voy a Monterrey! es una lastima que no pudiste disfrutar mas...
playgirl
May. 19th, 2009 01:33 am (UTC)
Ojala pueda ir otravez algun dia. La gente tan linda, y la cuidad es un encanto!
ormembar
May. 19th, 2009 11:17 am (UTC)
Ojala que si, que los problemas que ecisten ahora lo permitan pronto...

Besos
fourcorners
May. 17th, 2009 07:45 am (UTC)
I miss your sexy picture posts, my lovely
playgirl
May. 19th, 2009 01:35 am (UTC)
I really gotta start thinking sexy again!! :o)

Thank you luv!
ayoub
May. 17th, 2009 11:01 am (UTC)
You've made an excellent point!

And if anyone picks on you, I'll kiss it better, ok?

*smooches and love*
playgirl
May. 19th, 2009 01:31 am (UTC)
Thank you Ayoub!

Besitos!
tomcatshanger
May. 17th, 2009 06:09 pm (UTC)
Those who want to protect human life should support the ability to use the death penalty as punishment for violent murderers.

How else do you protect the innocent but by permanently stopping those who would kill them?

Of coarse, I am pro-choice. I suppose that makes me pro-killing.
playgirl
May. 19th, 2009 01:49 am (UTC)
The death penalty do not work. Besides, too many who were innocent were put to death. The death penalty is an act where those who put an innocent man to death, can't say OPPS!



tomcatshanger
May. 19th, 2009 08:41 am (UTC)
It works great. They die and don't hurt anyone else anymore.

Why do you support keeping the innocent locked up for the rest of their lives?

It's easy. We should only kill the ones we know are guilty, after DNA tests and multiple appeals.

And I guarantee they won't harm anyone ever again.
poetpaladin
May. 17th, 2009 09:11 pm (UTC)
I really admire your pro-2nd Amendment and pro-choice stances.

*hugs you*
playgirl
May. 19th, 2009 01:30 am (UTC)
Thank you! Hugs you back!
tigron_x
May. 25th, 2009 04:27 am (UTC)
In my opinion, the Abortion thing is very simple. How ethical is it for a woman to open her legs to just any man that tickles her fancy [knowing full well the possible consequences], get pregnant, and destory that life before it has a chance to mature?

It's unethical. So, by principal alone, those in the medical field should never consider an abortion as a viable means of practice, except in special circumstances such as rape victims, or in cases where the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother.

However, should technology permit, an alternative solution could be a transfer of the fetus to an artifical womb. Both sides are then happy.

Then we argue about whether or not the government should auction off the babies. <--- that's a joke, btw.

( 35 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

May 2015
S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com