CE8

[chrisfan]

JACkory said:

From the last board, I just have to say that though I have respect for Rick Warren, I completely disagree with his assertion that one cannot be a Christian without attending church services. What is Church but the universal Body of Christ? As a believing Christian I am in church 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Buildings and denominations are good things (well, maybe not denominations) but the minute you tell me that if I don't go to church on Sunday I am not a Christian I will accuse you of being a legalist. It's NOTHING that I do that makes me a Christian, other than believing and accepting Christ as Lord and Saviour of my life. What makes me a redeemed Christian is what JESUS did.
Yes, the Bible teaches that fellowship with other believers is edifying, but how do you automatically assume that "fellowship" must needs be mean "church attendance"?

Since the good man does not post on this board, I have to say that it's REALLY time that Rick Warren's words stop being mis-interpreted, over and over and over again. Rick Warren does not say that a person must go to a bricks and mortar church every Sunday, tithe, and be an active member, or else he is not a Christian. He says, and bases it on that now-well-known scripture in Matthe, that being a Christian is not a solitary thing. He argues that God has designed us to be interdependent, and that we need each other both to serve God, and to grow spiritually. Membership in a traditional church is a way to do that, but it IS NOT the only way to do that. No one involved in this now way too misinterpreted discussion is saying that it is! Rick Warren is simply saying, and I wholeheatedly agree, that in order to be a thriving, growing Christian, as God intends us to be, and as we're instructed in the bible, that you cannot do it on your own.

From this point forward, when the misinterpretation of these words is furthered yet again, rather than repeating myself again, I'm simply going to say "go back to the post". By that, I mean THIS POST There, now it will be easy to find.

[stratman19]

someone said:

I knew that the death penalty would get mentioned once everyone learned of Scott Peterson, and I said to myself that I'd hold back on my feelings towards this practice, but I lied.

As a self proclaimed flag waver, stratman, I assume you believe in our country's constitution. I'm sure you're one of the first people to defend gun owner's rights by citing the 2nd amendment. And who diesn't like to cite the 1st amendment when it suits them?

I have to then question how anyone who can supoort our constitution can support something that so blatantly goes against it. The death penalty takes away due process of law. It also treads a very fine line of cruel and unusual punishment, which is also protected by our constitution.

I'm sure I'll get thrown questions about well what if this happened to your sister, mother, etc etc. Well, if Scott Peterson murdered my sister, and murder is such a sin, then why would I want to turn around and become something so vile, a murderer, in essence becoming Scott Peterson myself? Because it doesn't matter who you're murdering, someone evil or someone innocent, you're still a murderer.

And oh, what about the cost? It's so much cheaper to kill them that life imprisonment. Actually, that's not true. Read up on it, the appeal process for death row inmates costs just as much money as keeping them in life imprisonment, where they can actually suffer for their deeds, where they might actually have to face their demons, and yes, where, in the end, they might actually find some kind of redemption.

When did we take it upon ourselves to decide that murder is okay, as long as it is sanctioned by the soceity we live in? The death penalty is brutal, legalized murder. It's also not an effective deterent to crime, is socially, economically, racially and sexually predjudiced.

I could go on, but I'll save my breath. This post wasn't really directed at anyone in particular, the death penalty just happens to be a very sensitive subject for me, and I could go on for days about it. I'll spare you.

As for HMF, why do you people bother with her? Even when you're on her side, she's against you, because she's a tenuous wench. When you see her and Vibe, just laugh to yourself and say "Looook. Inbreeeders."

Thorny, don't bother arguing with these two. They'll scream that no one listens to their side and puts words in their mouths, while they do nothing short of the same. Save your breath, brother.

Someone, I'd like to take a stab at some of the points you raised. Yes, I believe in the Constitution, yes, as a gun owner I vehemently defend the 2nd Amendment (in fact the Bill of Rights generally).

I do disagree when you say that the death penalty violates the Constitution, and the principle of due process. Here's some reasons why:

due process
n.

An established course for judicial proceedings or other governmental activities designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual.



Main Entry: due process
Function: noun
1 : a course of formal proceedings (as judicial proceedings) carried out regularly, fairly, and in accordance with established rules and principles called also procedural due process
2 : a requirement that laws and regulations must be related to a legitimate government interest (as crime prevention) and may not contain provisions that result in the unfair or arbitrary treatment of an individual called also substantive due process
NOTE: The guarantee of due process is found in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which states “no person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” and in the Fourteenth Amendment, which states “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” The boundaries of due process are not fixed and are the subject of endless judicial interpretation and decision-making. Fundamental to procedural due process is adequate notice prior to the government's deprivation of one's life, liberty, or property, and an opportunity to be heard and defend one's rights to life, liberty, or property. Substantive due process is a limit on the government's power to enact laws or regulations that affect one's life, liberty, or property rights. It is a safeguard from governmental action that is not related to any legitimate government interest or that is unfair, irrational, or arbitrary in its furtherance of a government interest. The requirement of due process applies to agency actions.
3 : the right to due process <acts that violated due process>

Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


due process

n : (law) the administration of justice according to established rules and principles; based on the principle that a person cannot be deprived of life or liberty or property without appropriate legal procedures and safeguards [syn: due process of law]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

As you can see, I don't believe the death penalty constitutes violations of the principles you mention.

You mention "cruel and unusual punishment", "Because it doesn't matter who you're murdering, someone evil or someone innocent, you're still a murderer.", and When did we take it upon ourselves to decide that murder is okay, as long as it is sanctioned by the soceity we live in? The death penalty is brutal, legalized murder. Can I ask you this? Isn't abortion many, if not all, of these same things? I'm not changing the subject to abortion, only in the context of whether it adheres to many of the same things that you find so abhorent about the death penalty. I assume as a "bedwetting liberal" (your words), that you support abortion. Following is something I posted some weeks ago on another board when the subject came up:

stratman19 said:

The entire infant is delivered except the head. A scissors is jammed into the base of the skull. A tube is inserted into the skull, and the brain is sucked out. The now-dead infant is pulled out. The drawings illustrate this.

Would this qualify as brutal? Is this legalized murder? Granted, this depicts partial birth abortion, but what about any abortion? And these fetuses haven't even been convicted of any crime!

Anyway, as I said, this isn't about abortion per se. It's about the concept of legalized murder i.e. death penalty/abortion. The truth of the matter is that I'm as conflicted about the death penalty as I am about abortion. Incidentally, I do agree with you that the death penalty is not a deterrent. I've never argued that, and I think there's enough evidence out there to support that assertion.

As for my conflicts, I believe abortion to be wrong, but support it being kept safe and legal. I suppose I feel the same way about the death penalty, that it's ultimately wrong, but also a viable method of punishment. I don't imagine I'm alone in having to compromise my values from time to time. Sometimes things aren't so black and white, rather shades of gray.

As for your advice to Thorny to save his breath, I agree with that too. He and I are opposite sides of the same coin. Neither one of us understands the other and our positions are polar opposites. We'd both be better off to live and let live.

[Nepenthe]

WOW, that was absolutely one of the most horrible disgusting things I have ever seen Strat.

But it does make an excellent point that I have always agreed with. Abortion equals the death penalty of the innocent, in FAR greater numbers than the prison punishment death penalty.

[Philemon]

In the latest statistics available (1998), it has been determined the "dilatation and extraction" procedure amounts to less than 0.05 percent of all abortions in 1996, a total of about 650 of the 1.37 million abortions performed. It is estimated that only 14 facilities nationwide perform the procedure.

It is my understanding the vast majority of those abortions were made because of health concerns for the pregnant women or genetic malformations on the part of the foetus ...

[Kensterberg]

The Constitutional problem with the death penalty isn't one of due process, it's one of equal protection. African-American defendants are disproportionally sentenced to death -- even when the crime is identical to one committed by an Anglo. The way that the death penalty is administered in this country, much like the "separate but equal" pre-Brown v. Board school system, is inherently unequal, and discriminates based upon race. Racial discrimination by the government must withstand strict scrutiny from the courts -- that is, the discriminatory action must be the least amount of governmental action necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. As imprisoning a person for life with no chance of parole has the same effect, and with fewer permanent consequences, while reducing discrimination, it is the preferrable option.

Also, the rash of cases in which DNA evidence has exonerated death row inmates after they had exhausted all their legal appeals, the liklihood of the state irrevovably and permanently depriving innocents of their liberty interest (life), raises serious doubts as to the ability of our current system to correctly determine who should be put to death. Combining the documented institutionalized racism in the implementation of the death penalty with the inability of our current system to properly identify who is in fact guilty, yields state sanctioned murder based on skin color. Not something that we in America really want to do, is it? (Also, note the use of the word "exonerated" in the first sentence of this paragraph. These men were not found to be "not guilty" -- i.e. the state did not meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that they did the acts in question. Rather, these men have been found to be actually innocent -- they didn't do the things that the state was going to kill them for. It is a statistical certainty that we have executed innocent men for crimes they did not (and physically could not) commit. To imprison an innocent man is bad enough, but to kill one is a societal sin for which we should be ashamed).

Also, the comparison of abortion to the death penalty is a red herring. The two actually have almost nothing in common. Abortion is a private act, taken based upon a personal belief (when does an embryo cross the line from "fetus" to person), in limited circumstances and with the help of a medical professional. Abortion is ultimately between a woman, her health care provider, and her god. The punishment of execution, on the other hand, is the ultimate expression of state power. It is an act taken by the state, following the deliberation and recommendation of a group of jurors, based upon an imperfect presentation by advocates of "facts", which punishes the purported actions of that person. State action must meet a higher standard than that of individuals -- this is why an individual or a private institution can engage in behavior which the government cannot. On a fundemental level, abortion is a personal, individual action, while the execution of a convicted criminal is a collective, state action. In the first case, the consequences of the act flow only to the persons directly involved, while the death in the second instance bloodies all our hands.

[Nepenthe]

Philemon said:

In the latest statistics available (1998), it has been determined the "dilatation and extraction" procedure amounts to less than 0.05 percent of all abortions in 1996, a total of about 650 of the 1.37 million abortions performed. It is estimated that only 14 facilities nationwide perform the procedure.

It is my understanding the vast majority of those abortions were made because of health concerns for the pregnant women or genetic malformations on the part of the foetus ...

stratman said:

Would this qualify as brutal? Is this legalized murder? Granted, this depicts partial birth abortion, but what about any abortion? And these fetuses haven't even been convicted of any crime!

I think this was the point.

a total of about 650 of the 1.37 million abortions performed. It is estimated that only 14 facilities nationwide perform the procedure.

And both those numbers are definately FAR greater than the amount of innocent people get the death penalty in court.

[stratman19]

KenHolzman said:

Also, the comparison of abortion to the death penalty is a red herring. The two actually have almost nothing in common. Abortion is a private act, taken based upon a personal belief (when does an embryo cross the line from "fetus" to person), in limited circumstances and with the help of a medical professional. Abortion is ultimately between a woman, her health care provider, and her god. The punishment of execution, on the other hand, is the ultimate expression of state power. It is an act taken by the state, following the deliberation and recommendation of a group of jurors, based upon an imperfect presentation by advocates of "facts", which punishes the purported actions of that person. State action must meet a higher standard than that of individuals -- this is why an individual or a private institution can engage in behavior which the government cannot. On a fundemental level, abortion is a personal, individual action, while the execution of a convicted criminal is a collective, state action. In the first case, the consequences of the act flow only to the persons directly involved, while the death in the second instance bloodies all our hands.

Ken, it wasn't my intention to put capital punishment and abortion on an equal legal footing. I thought Someone was making her points from both a legal and moral perspective (at least that's the way I took them).

From the legal perspective, she said that the death penalty violated the principle of due process, and I set out to show why it didn't.

But I also thought she was making a moral argument against the death penalty as well. She also said:

"Because it doesn't matter who you're murdering, someone evil or someone innocent, you're still a murderer"

"When did we take it upon ourselves to decide that murder is okay, as long as it is sanctioned by the society we live in?"

It was from this standpoint (the moral one) that I was arguing that if capital punishment is murder "sanctioned by the society we live in", then isn't abortion the same thing. I realize they don't carry the same legal weight.

Ken, when you say "In the first case, the consequences of the act flow only to the persons directly involved, while the death in the second instance bloodies all our hands.", I would argue that if, in the second instance the death bloodies all our hands due to societal sanctioning, that all our hands are equally bloodied by the death in the first instance for the same reason.

[stratman19]

Since I've seemed to manage to kill the board, and since I have to work tomorrow, I'm going to throw out some topics for discussion. (may take several posts) Discuss them, ignore them.

First up. How do we define/justify murder? (morally/legally. And when is it not considered "murder")?

1. Is a soldier guilty of murder for killing enemy combatants?

2. Is a civilian guilty of murder for killing in self defense?

3. Is a police officer guilty of murder for killing a person in the commission of a crime where his life (or someone else's) is threatened?

4. Is abortion murder?

5. Is capital punishment murder?

Where do we draw the line? How do we draw the line? Debate, discussion, argument, complete ambivalence welcome.

I said it may take a few posts...stage 2 to follow.

[stratman19]

Stage 2...

This post has to do with my unyielding opposition to Arafat being buried in Jerusalem. I said many posts back that he shouldn't be (and he wasn't). He was a killer and a terrorist, and I hated his guts. Here's an article that reflects how I feel:

Arafat the monster
Jeff Jacoby


November 12, 2004

Yasser Arafat died at the age of 75, lying in bed and surrounded by familiar faces. He left this world peacefully, unlike the thousands of victims he sent to early graves.

In a better world, the PLO chief would have met his end on a gallows, hanged for mass murder much as the Nazi chiefs were hanged at Nuremberg. In a better world, the French president would not have paid a visit to the bedside of such a monster. In a better world, well-wishers would not be flocking to the hospital grounds to create a makeshift shrine of flowers, candles, and admiring messages. In a better world, George Bush would not have said, on hearing the first reports that Arafat had died, "God bless his soul."

God bless his soul? What a grotesque thing to say! Bless the soul of the man who brought modern terrorism to the world? Who sent his agents to slaughter athletes at the Olympics, blow airliners out of the sky, bomb schools and pizzerias, machine-gun passengers in airline terminals? Who lied, cheated, and stole without compunction? Who inculcated the vilest culture of Jew-hatred since the Third Reich? Human beings might stoop to bless a creature so evil -- as indeed Arafat was blessed, with money, deference, even a Nobel Prize -- but God, I am quite sure, will damn him for eternity.

Arafat always inspired flights of nonsense from Western journalists, and his last two weeks were no exception.

Arafat's "undisputed courage as a guerrilla leader," Derek Brown wrote in The Guardian, was exceeded only "by his extraordinary courage" as a peace negotiator. But it is an odd kind of courage that expresses itself in shooting unarmed victims and exhorting other people to become suicide bombers -- or in signing peace accords and then flagrantly violating their terms.

Another commentator, columnist Gwynne Dyer, asked, "So what did Arafat do right?" The answer: He drew worldwide attention to the Palestinian cause, "for the most part by successful acts of terror." In other words, butchering innocent human beings was "right" since it served an ulterior political motive. No doubt that thought brings daily comfort to all those who were forced to bury a child, parent, or spouse because of Arafat's "successful" terrorism.

Some journalists couldn't wait for Arafat's actual death to begin weeping for him. Take the BBC's Barbara Plett, who burst into tears on the day he was airlifted out of the West Bank. "When the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound," Plett reported from Ramallah, "I started to cry." Normal people don't weep for brutal murderers, but Plett made it clear that her empathy for Arafat -- whom she praised as "a symbol of Palestinian unity, steadfastness, and resistance" -- was heartfelt:

"I remember well when the Israelis re-conquered the West Bank more than two years ago," she said, "how they drove their tanks and bulldozers into Mr. Arafat's headquarters, trapping him in a few rooms, and throwing a military curtain around Ramallah. I remember how Palestinians admired his refusal to flee under fire. They told me: 'Our leader is sharing our pain, we are all under the same siege.' And so was I." Such is the state of journalism at the BBC, whose reporters do not seem to have any trouble reporting, dry-eyed, on the pain of Arafat's victims. (That is, when they mention them -- which Plett's teary bon voyage to Arafat did not.)

And what about those victims? Why were they scarcely remembered in the drawn-out Arafat deathwatch?

How is it possible to reflect on Arafat's most enduring legacy -- the rise of modern terrorism -- without recalling the legions of men, women, and children whose lives he and his followers destroyed? If Osama bin Laden were on his deathbed, would we neglect to mention all those he murdered on 9/11?

It would take an encyclopedia to catalog all of the evil Arafat committed. But that is no excuse for not trying to recall at least some of it.

Perhaps his signal contribution to the practice of political terror was the introduction of warfare against children. On one black date in May 1974, three PLO terrorists slipped from Lebanon into the northern Israeli town of Ma'alot. They murdered two parents and their child at home, then seized a local school, taking more than 100 boys and girls hostage and threatening to kill them unless a number of imprisoned terrorists were released. When Israeli troops attempted a rescue, the terrorists exploded hand grenades and opened fire on the students. By the time the horror ended, 25 people were dead; 21 of them were children.

Thirty years later, no one speaks of Ma'alot anymore. The dead children have been forgotten. Everyone knows Arafat's name, but who ever recalls the names of his victims?

So let us recall them: Ilana Turgeman. Rachel Aputa. Yocheved Mazoz. Sarah Ben-Shim'on. Yona Sabag. Yafa Cohen. Shoshana Cohen. Michal Sitrok. Malka Amrosy. Aviva Saada. Yocheved Diyi. Yaakov Levi. Yaakov Kabla. Rina Cohen. Ilana Ne'eman. Sarah Madar. Tamar Dahan. Sarah Soper. Lili Morad. David Madar. Yehudit Madar. The 21 dead children of Ma'alot -- 21 of the thousands of innocents who died at Arafat's command.

©2004 Boston Globe

Like I said in previous posts, good riddance. Thoughts, comments on Arafat?

[stratman19]

Third, and final stage...

The DLC's (Democratic Leadership Council) assessment on this last election, which kind of merges with the last article I posted by Charles Krauthammer:

DLC | New Dem Daily | November 4, 2004
What Happened?


In the aftermath of the 2004 elections, Democrats should be proud of the united effort they and their candidates made. But we have to face facts: We got our clocks cleaned up and down the ballot. This is no time for finger pointing and recriminations, but it is time for some honest discussion about the outcome and its significance.

We have no easy excuses for this defeat. Democrats had a smart, tough candidate at the top of the ticket, and superior candidates all across the country. We had plenty of money, the best organization of our lifetimes, extraordinary enthusiasm, and greater unity than at any time in living memory. Democrats faced a vulnerable incumbent with a bad record who deliberately abandoned the political center, and whose case for a second term was constantly undermined by the consequences of his failures as displayed on the nightly news. And his party produced a do-nothing Congress with no accomplishments worth running on. Ralph Nader was an electoral cipher. It's hard to ignore the basic problem: We didn't effectively make the case for firing the incumbents and replacing them with Democrats.

As a result, Republicans for the second straight cycle won a majority of the popular vote; made gains in both Houses of Congress; and increased their grip on a vast swath of heartland states.

The slow but significant erosion of Democratic support in recent years is a collective responsibility for all Democrats, us included. It will not be reversed by any simple, mechanical move to the "left" or the "right;" by any new infusion of cash or grassroots organizing; by any reshuffling of party institutions or their leadership; or by any magically charismatic candidates. That's why engaging in any "struggle for the soul of the party," or any assignment of blame, is such a waste of time. But that's also why Democrats must take the defeat seriously, and pursue a strategy for revival and reform.

The dynamics of this campaign have confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt that Democrats suffer from three persistent "trust gaps" in our message.

The first "trust gap" was on national security, which became a crucial issue after 9/11, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Kerry tried very hard to close this gap, and refused to accept the advice of those who suggested he simply concede the issue to Bush (which would have expanded the gap to catastrophic dimensions). But while he convinced Americans we would be smarter on national security, he could not overcome the party's reputation for being weaker, and that was a deal-breaker for many voters who didn't want to take any chances with their security. In other words, Bush didn't pay the ultimate price for his foreign policy failures because we couldn't put to rest doubts about Democrats.

The second obvious problem for Democrats was a "reform gap." Having lost control of every nook and cranny of the federal government during the last two elections, Democrats were perfectly positioned to run as bold, outsider, insurgent reformers determined to change Washington, and the public was ready to embrace such a message and agenda. While Democrats did made a strong negative case against Bush, we never conveyed a positive agenda for reform. Indeed, Democrats often reinforced the idea that the GOP was the "reform" party by trying to scare voters about every bad or deceptive Republican idea for changing government programs, instead of offering our own alternatives for reform. In the end, we relied on mobilizing voters who were hostile to Bush instead of persuading voters who were ambivalent about both parties, and about government. Since Republicans did have a simple, understandable message, it was an uneven contest: message plus mobilization will beat mobilization alone every time.

The third "trust gap" that hurt Democrats was another hardy perennial: values and culture. And here the evidence of a Democratic handicap is overwhelming. As every exit poll has shown, "moral values" was the number one concern of voters on November 2 -- more than terrorism, Iraq, the economy, health care, education, or anything else. And among voters citing "moral values" as their top concern, Democrats got clobbered.

Overcoming the cultural trust gap is not just a matter of carefully calibrating positions on specific issues like guns, abortion, or this year's big wedge issue, gay marriage. Indeed, John Kerry did not repeat Al Gore's mistake of leading with his chin on such issues. The problem is that many millions of voters simply do not believe that Democrats take their cultural fears and resentments seriously, and that Republicans do.

As in so many recent elections, some Democrats believed they could trump the cultural concerns of middle-class families through economic appeals, asking voters to look to their pocket-books rather than their hearts when entering the polling place. If there was ever an election where this should have worked, it was this one, and it didn't.

If, as the DLC has long argued, the test for Democrats is to convince voters that they will defend their country, share their values, and champion their economic interests, it's pretty clear Democrats continue to come up short on the first two tests even as they pass the third with flying colors.

As a look at the electoral map and the Congressional results shows, there is a geographical challenge closely associated with the "trust gap" challenge: We need a heartland strategy to go with a positive message that reaches the heart as well as the wallet. In presidential contests, we begin each campaign at a disadvantage because our strength is limited to the Northeast, the West Coast, and the upper Midwest, where our candidates must win nearly every winnable state. And more obviously, Democrats will be consigned to a permanent minority in the Senate, in the states, and -- because states control redistricting -- in the House as well, if we cannot find a way to become competitive in some parts of the South and the West. That's why we should not take too much solace in the narrowness of Bush's victory in the national popular and electoral vote. National politics is not just about the presidency.

All of these challenges are manageable if Democrats take them seriously and honestly. They add up to the urgent need for a party strategy and message that's strategic, not tactical; that conveys a comprehensive message, not just targeted appeals to narrow constituencies; that's national, not regional; and that's based on ideas and hope, not just on opposition and anger.

There will be a powerful temptation for Democrats to simply go to the mattresses, fight Republicans tooth and nail, and hope for a big midterm sweep in 2006. That would be a mistake, just as it was a mistake to believe that Bush's weakness would be enough to produce a victory in 2004. It's time for Democrats to clearly stand for values, principles, and ideas that will earn us the opportunity to become the majority party of the future.

That was from a Democrat website

Duh? But you've so clearly dismissed most of America and it's values for so long...

I saw an article about Democrats "faking it." I'll have to find it. That's it for tonight tho'.

Goodnight.

[chrisfan]

Reports are trickling in that Colin Powell resigned over the weekend.

[Galactus]

A BOULDER ON HIS SHOULDER?
Best wishes for a speedy recovery to Mighty Max
As Conan O'Brien told Late Night viewers this week, Max Weinberg is currently recovering from a broken collarbone. According to the New York Daily News, the injury happened during a post-election football game at Senator John Kerry's place. The good news, according to the paper: "He's expected back at work next week." Here's hoping!

That must have been one hell of a football game. While I realize "post-election" just means "after the election" I'd still like to think that it was election night and Kerry was so pissed he was just sacking everything in site. He's very manly, you know.

[strat-0]

Chrisfan said:

Reports are trickling in that Colin Powell resigned over the weekend.

Yep, it's official.

Powell has a lot of integrity. He has my respect.

[chrisfan]

This has to be the most brillant move in Washington this week -- Ken Mehlman is expected to be named the next chair of the RNC. If Ed HAS to go, and he seems determined to do that, Ken is just about as good of a replacement as there is!

[pissin2]

They should all step down and maybe god will forgive their souls.