• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How long will he live?

How long will he live?

  • Less than 6-months

    Votes: 1 4.5%

  • 6 months to a year

    Votes: 1 4.5%

  • 1 to 2 years

    Votes: 2 9.1%

  • 2 to 5 years

    Votes: 1 4.5%

  • 5 to 10 years

    Votes: 1 4.5%

  • He'll die of natural causes

    Votes: 16 72.7%
  • Total voters
    22
  • Poll closed .
zimmer said:
You fail to realize we are the only super power nation in history that hasn't gone on a conquest.
Click to expand...

Just a slight correction... Manifest Destiny :shrug:
 
This is NOT about a man. Its about a small ORG that should be made a enemy of the Federal Gov't.
These bastards endanger ALL of us.
 
Assange is just a figureheead. Other people work at wikileaks who would just replace him.

Also, the documents are already out. If the documents are doing damage, then the damage is already done. Killing Assange now will do nothing but bring joy to a twisted minority.
 
I don't get it.. Why are some people getting overly emotional over this Assange guy? He's not a spy and he was not the person that stole/leaked the govt internal memos.

What Assange's WikiLeaks and other news outlets did was publish the material that was leaked, so shouldnt theose seeking vengence be directing their rage towards the the person/s that actually gave the material to the news media?

:shrug:
 
Last edited:
Tedminator said:
I don't get it.. Why are some people getting overly emotional over this Assange guy? He's not a spy and he was not the person that stole/leaked the govt internal memos.

What Assange's WikiLeaks and other news outlets did was publish the material that was leaked, so shouldnt theose seeking vengence be directing their rage towards the the person/s that actually gave the material to the news media?

:shrug:
Click to expand...

No, because every problem needs a scapegoat. Better to put the blame in the totally wrong place than look at your own two dirty feet.
 
Tedminator said:
I don't get it.. Why are some people getting overly emotional over this Assange guy? He's not a spy and he was not the person that stole/leaked the govt internal memos.

What Assange's WikiLeaks and other news outlets did was publish the material that was leaked, so shouldnt theose seeking vengence be directing their rage towards the the person/s that actually gave the material to the news media?

:shrug:
Click to expand...
Of course, everyone who has spied against the United States needs to be assassinated.

However, if you want to make an example and send a clear message, Assange needs to be first.
 
Guess it is time to start assasisnating US citizens.. lets start with Bush and Cheney and work our way through the conservative supreme court and then through the bankers and backers of the Tea Party .. that would be a good start! They all are a clear and present danger to the planet after all..
 
Patria Antiqua said:
Of course, everyone who has spied against the United States needs to be assassinated.

However, if you want to make an example and send a clear message, Assange needs to be first.
Click to expand...

Why? Legally (from a certain pov) he has done nothing wrong. Morally he has done no more wrong than any other news media has. So if you're going to condemn him then you should by rights condemn the news media also. Should they be assassinated also?
 
Last edited:
spud_meister said:
But to apply your argument to the gun ban example, if you ban guns, and it stops one person from having a gun and thus commiting a crime with it, is it not worth it?
Click to expand...

that was/is not the arguement. the arguement was "the death penalty does not deter crime". by showing one single case in which it does/has you disprove the arguement. (in science we call that a counter-example. and it only takes one counter example to disprove a theory)



the problem with banning guns is that those most likely to commit crimes using guns are also those least likely to obey a ban on guns.
 
zimmer said:
Julian (Fries) Assange, the wiki-wacki-leaker?

He's pissed off just about everyone, is in hot oil up to his eyeballs, and he fears for his life; rightly so.

How long will he live?
This man has complaints, would it hurt us if we were to listen and do something?



.
Click to expand...
This man has his complaints; would it hurt if we were to listen and do something?
 
zimmer said:
I think it's common sense really. If you find someone you are head over heals with and discover that individual has a sexual disease known to cause pain, suffering and death, will you give that individual a go? You might :) , most would be deterred.

The death penalty will not deter everyone, that's not the point, but it will deter some, and if it saves even one life it's worth it. I think the numbers of Pataki's NY before he implemented the death sentence, and after is quite revealing.

.
Click to expand...

Then, WHY, Zimmer are the more advanced nations on this planet so against the death penalty?
Sadly, we are not in the group, and may never be ,with the tea bagging republicans that we have in power.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
And what, exactly, is morally suspect about killing a man who is a clear and present danger to our national security?
Click to expand...

You're right by that.

But let's not kill him - let's just waterboard him.
 
zimmer said:
The death penalty is a proven deterrent, and I suspect that if Julian Fries Assange knew he'd be offed beforehand, he'd have thought twice. I'd say the same for the 22-year old moron that provided the info. If they line up the kid that stole the documents and fill him full of lead, you don't think the next potential idiot will think twice? You betcha.
Click to expand...

Do you think this is the first time US secrets have been leaked?

If this is not the first time, why haven't any other actions against leaks (e.g. how did Russia or anyone else develop nuclear weapons or gain any other US technology) prevented Private Manning from doing what he did?
 
zimmer said:
The death penalty is a proven deterrent, and I suspect that if Julian Fries Assange knew he'd be offed beforehand, he'd have thought twice.
Click to expand...

I think you are misjudging these individuals. Some people are more than willing to accept the risk of death for a cause they believe is just. What it would most likely achieve is emboldening those true believers. Of course, I see no problem with emboldening dissidents against the State, but still I would rather not see anyone killed.
 
zimmer said:
Julian (Fries) Assange, the wiki-wacki-leaker?

He's pissed off just about everyone, is in hot oil up to his eyeballs, and he fears for his life; rightly so.

How long will he live?
.
Click to expand...

depends. i think i heard something about him threatening to release documents on the relationship between the russian government and russian corporations.


if that is the case, then his lifespan has just decreased dramatically.
 
PeteEU said:
Guess it is time to start assasisnating US citizens.. lets start with Bush and Cheney and work our way through the conservative supreme court and then through the bankers and backers of the Tea Party .. that would be a good start! They all are a clear and present danger to the planet after all..
Click to expand...
No, just Manning and Assange.
 
spud_meister said:
The threat of death has never being a deterrent, as studies on the death penalty have shown, so I still assert it is pointless and immoral to kill him.
Click to expand...

the way our death penatly is currently structured leaves it not actually a threat of death. the deterrent of the potential of being killed can be better seen in the number of people who continue with a rape/robbery after the victim points a gun at them.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Okay, so it wouldn't be very effective. I still don't see how it's morally dubious.
Click to expand...

I don't consider the government to have a right to keep secrets from its citizenry, thus I view this as him being executed/assassinated for free speech.

That's why I view it as morally dubious for me to support his execution, but it's not morally dubious for you to support it, because I assume you don't accept my premises. If you DID accept my premises, and still wanted him killed, then your position would be morally abhorrent.

How long do I think he'll live? Given that he has half the world's governments out to get him and much of the corporate world (who are probably less forgiving), I'd give him about a decade at most unless he goes into hiding, or quits his job and goes someplace far far away.
 
Last edited:
SirPwn4lot said:
I don't consider the government to have a right to keep secrets from its citizenry, thus I view this as him being executed/assassinated for free speech.
Click to expand...

Much as I'd prefer it otherwise, the mass of the citizenry are panicky cattle; this is part of the reason we need a government in the first place. In order to perform its necessary functions, the government keep many of its actions secret-- both from other nations and from irrational elements within its own jurisdiction. We would need to be a far more advanced people before we could live with complete government transparency, and ironically the more advanced we become, the less pressing demand there would be for such.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Much as I'd prefer it otherwise, the mass of the citizenry are panicky cattle; this is part of the reason we need a government in the first place. In order to perform its necessary functions, the government keep many of its actions secret-- both from other nations and from irrational elements within its own jurisdiction. We would need to be a far more advanced people before we could live with complete government transparency, and ironically the more advanced we become, the less pressing demand there would be for such.
Click to expand...

Ya know this is always the excuse of those that don't want transparency. I've yet to see any real evidence that it is true....of course I've yet to see a transparent government. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom