| Author |
Message |
| Death Mage |
|
 |
| Trojan Horse |
Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:47 pm Post subject: 0 |
|
You do know what the inevitable retort is, right?
"Let's consider George W. Bush's record when it comes to terrorism. In just his first year in office, how many jihadists reached their targets? 19. And how many people did they kill? A couple thousand. Looks like Obama wins." |
|
 |
| Death Mage |
|
 |
| Jedo the Jedi |
Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 9:47 pm Post subject: -2 |
|
| I can't believe people celebrate the death of someone else. |
|
 |
| Death Mage |
|
 |
| Mackay |
|
 |
| Scurra |
|
 |
| blah* |
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:24 am Post subject: -6 |
|
| The US population over that period grew by around 10 million, so I don't think the article you quote is nearly so impressive. |
|
 |
| Death Mage |
|
 |
| JDTAY |
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 12:32 pm Post subject: -8 |
|
France just elected a dude who literally said "My real enemy is the world of finance."
Au revoir, EU. |
|
 |
| JDTAY |
Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:57 pm Post subject: -9 |
|
Quick, somebody say something about CISPA passing the House.
I'm not good at this sort of thing. |
|
 |
| Pablo |
Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 9:58 pm Post subject: -10 |
|
I agree!
sa·cred
adjective
1.devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated. |
|
 |
| Jack_Ian |
Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 12:10 am Post subject: -11 |
|
| Death Mage wrote: |
| Life is not sacred. Nor should it be. |
Sounds like DM would be happy on Rubicun III
Can't say I blame him.  |
|
 |
| Death Mage |
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 11:47 pm Post subject: -12 |
|
| Life is not sacred. Nor should it be. |
|
 |
| Pablo |
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:34 pm Post subject: -13 |
|
| I have no way to prove or even support this, but in my humble opinion, the mere existence of the death penalty in a "civilization" condones killing, or at least makes it less taboo. Counter-intuitively, consequently and ironically, the death penalty could actually increase the incidence of homicide. In any case, to me it seems barbaric and unnecessary, and has no proven, measurable benefits. |
|
 |
| extropalopakettle |
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:45 am Post subject: -14 |
|
| Zag wrote: |
| 2. It's MORE expensive than just keeping the person locked up for the rest of his life. (This one surprised me, and the possible cost savings was, to me, the best argument for the death penalty. If it isn't there...) |
And the reason it's more expensive is the endless appeals, without which far more innocent people would be executed. |
|
 |
| Thok |
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:15 am Post subject: -15 |
|
So have any of the posts this month been from a libertarian point of view?
I don't mind the political talk. But this thread had a particular viewpoint, and the three people who posted the most in this thread mostly don't post on GL any more (I'm thinking of Chaz, Pablo, and sadly Samadhi.)
Of course, I'm enough of a libertarian to let people discuss non-libertarian viewpoints in a libertarian thread if that's what they want to do.  |
|
 |
| Jack_Ian |
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:59 pm Post subject: -16 |
|
The only realistic way to reduce the crime stats, IMO, is to introduce summary execution for the reporting of crime.
Don't know if this has ever been tried, but it's sure to produce a measurable improvement. |
|
 |
| Gomez |
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:32 pm Post subject: -17 |
|
| The best argument against the death penalty, IMO, is that every stage of the process -from Grand Jury to gas chamber - is overseen by fallible human beings with their own preconceptions and biases, as well as a propensity for error. Therefore, any state which introduces the death penalty does so knowing that eventually an innocent person will be executed. It's not a risk, it's a mathematical certainty. Fallibility+time=Error. Simple as that. And if you're okay with that, if you're okay with the knowledge that innocent people will die in pursuit of the Utilitarian idea of the greater good the death penalty is supposed to represent, then...well, what's really the difference between you and the murderers you're supposed to be punishing? |
|
 |
| Zag |
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 3:23 pm Post subject: -18 |
|
I fail to see any argument for death penalty.
1. It's not a deterrent.
2. It's MORE expensive than just keeping the person locked up for the rest of his life. (This one surprised me, and the possible cost savings was, to me, the best argument for the death penalty. If it isn't there...)
3. It doesn't really provide any sort of closure or emotional release to the families of the victims, from what I understand. I imagine that this is not 100% accurate -- there are probably some victims' families which it does help. I'll concede that this is a partial argument for the death penalty.
Any others?
Arguments against:
I would not argue against it on humanitarian grounds. I believe that killing humans is wrong; and I also believe that there are things a person can do which sacrifices his right to be called human. Someone who has raped and murdered children is not a human -- go ahead and kill him with good conscience. However...
1. The biggest clear argument against death penalty is, IMHO, how often the convictions are simply wrong. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates. While our justice system is not as blatantly racist as it used to be*, it still makes mistakes.
2. Another argument is how inconsistently the death penalty is applied. It turns out that wealthy people never end up on death row, because they have better lawyers. Even if you reverse my first objection by requiring absolutely conclusive DNA evidence before considering the death penalty, you'll never overcome this one. A better lawyer might have gotten that evidence blocked early on, or mitigated, or whatever. I realize that there will always be an imbalance in the justice system, that wealthier people have an advantage, but this distinction seems too much, to me.
* Some years back I read a biography of Thurgood Marshall (first black Supreme Court Justice). His first case as a lawyer presenting to the Supreme Court was a successful attempt to commute a death penalty conviction to be merely life in prison. The horrifying aspect of the case is that it was of a black man whom everyone involved, from the police to the prosecutor to the judge, knew was actually innocent of the crime. |
|
 |
| Trojan Horse |
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 2:43 pm Post subject: -19 |
|
This November, Californians will vote on whether to abolish the death penalty.
Until now, I've been content to be "hopelessly undecided" on this particular issue. Now I actually have to weigh in.
Urg.  |
|
 |
| Scurra |
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 12:15 pm Post subject: -20 |
|
Just because.
http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/conservative-donors-2012-4/
And to think that in the UK, we're worried about people who donate £250k!
Actually, I'm willing to bet that - even though some parties will squeal about it - the UK will end up with extremely restrictive political donation limits before very long, because we've entered a very strange period at the moment where the growth of the apathetic means that activists are powerful again, and they are getting more focussed than ever. And caps on donations are something that unites quite a lot of the different campaign groups at the moment. |
|
 |
| Thok |
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:25 pm Post subject: -21 |
|
Unless you plan to resurrect Samadhi so he can post in this thread, there's no call for necromancy.
(Too soon?) |
|
 |
| Zag |
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 5:19 pm Post subject: -22 |
|
It seems awfully quiet here, lately. Maybe this will perk you up.
 |
|
 |
| JDTAY |
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:05 pm Post subject: -23 |
|
Hey look, something Scurra and the rest of us can agree on: Obama's part of the 1%.  |
|
 |
| Scurra |
|
 |
| JDTAY |
|
 |
| Pablo |
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 11:45 pm Post subject: -26 |
|
Scurra, you need to understand one thing.... NO ONE here is talking about cutting spending!!! When they give you that impression, they are only talking about reducing the proposed increases. So, instead of a 10% increase, a 6% increase would represent a 40% cut in spending (from 10 to 6). Welcome to government economics.
On the other hand, when they talk about increasing taxes, they mean it. The actually are referring to taking MORE money from those who earn and giving it to government, who wastes via inefficiency, graft, corruption, and downright stupidity. |
|
 |
| Scurra |
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 11:20 pm Post subject: -27 |
|
| Pablo wrote: |
| If these "negotiations" prevented tax increases, I consider them a major success. |
You obviously have a different idea of "major success" to me (and, indeed, to e.g. Ronald Reagan...) But hey, it's your country.
Having said that, I am happy to accept that raising taxes and cutting spending should ideally be done during a boom - as Clinton did, but Bush notably did not. Doing it during the biggest recession for almost a century is probably a bad idea. However, if one is determined to do it, it's just the idea that you do just the cutting spending bit that strikes me as being perverse. Then again I care about other people. </sanctimonious git> |
|
 |
| Pablo |
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:45 pm Post subject: -28 |
|
| Scurra wrote: |
Except that the six Republicans turn out all to have signed Grover Norquist's pledge to never ever raise taxes under any circumstances.
How the hell did anyone expect anything other than the complete failure of these "negotiations"?
|
If these "negotiations" prevented tax increases, I consider them a major success. |
|
 |
| JDTAY |
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:55 pm Post subject: -29 |
|
| At least it's nice to see Obama threatening to veto any attempt to rescind the automatic cuts. I mean, I know he'll cave, but it's nice that he still cares about us enough to pretend. |
|
 |
| Scurra |
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:08 pm Post subject: -30 |
|
So the US sets up a "super committee" that needs to agree on how to rebalance the budget which has got out of control. It puts six Democrats and six Republicans on it.
Except that the six Republicans turn out all to have signed Grover Norquist's pledge to never ever raise taxes under any circumstances.
How the hell did anyone expect anything other than the complete failure of these "negotiations"?
I'm not saying that there might not have been intransigence on the side of the Democrats too (although being biased I would observe that the problem with being willing to compromise is that it only works if both sides are prepared to do so, and recent experience has shown that the Republicans seem to have lost this idea. It would be a novelty for Democrats to show similar resolve, but not impossible.)
But to enter into a serious debate about the future of one of the biggest economies on the planet knowing full well that you are not prepared to consider even looking at one of the major planks of it strikes me as being downright irresponsible to say the least. |
|
 |
| Death Mage |
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:08 pm Post subject: -31 |
|
More amusement than annoying:
What liberal media? |
|
 |
| Pablo |
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:13 pm Post subject: -32 |
|
| Zag wrote: |
Of course, it still doesn't explain George W. Bush. He lead the country to ruin without being especially charismatic. |
He actually was rather charismatic for a short time after 9/11. He made some brilliant and compelling speeches and actually did a masterful job of bringing the country together......for a short time. |
|
 |
| Death Mage |
|
 |
| Mackay |
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 3:30 am Post subject: -34 |
|
| Ugh, how tasteless can you be? |
|
 |
| Death Mage |
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 2:43 am Post subject: -35 |
|
| The Idiot in JDTAY's video wrote: |
| The other represents the very worst form of American opportunism. Vacuous, crass, and according to almost every biographer, vindictive too. |
Here I thought he was talking about himself.
Fucking amazing. |
|
 |
| JDTAY |
|
 |
| Scurra |
Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2011 5:31 pm Post subject: -37 |
|
I'm not sure I agree re GWB - he didn't have to be especially charismatic, he just had to be more charismatic than the opposition. And the Democrats were doubly screwed by virtue of the fact that whoever they chose was going to look grey compared to Clinton (after all, that's pretty much how Clinton won first time around, by outcharming Bush Sr.) And then in 2004 Bush was in a strong position (in much the same way that Blair was in the UK.)
And I certainly don't contest your argument against my observation. The question as I see it is whether the US has already lost a claim to having the right of free speech when "popular opinion" appears to be significantly affected by who can spend the most on getting their message across. There is a serious danger that the polarisation of the debate that has been happening over the past generation is now too serious to resolve under the current political system. As I understand it, a number of recent Presidential elections have resulted in a remarkably similar 50/50 split in the vote, with the swing going fractionally one way and then the other. That's actually not a very good outcome if you happen to be on the losing side in the way that a convincing loss can be. |
|
 |
| Zag |
Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2011 2:10 pm Post subject: -38 |
|
Interesting point. I have to say that I agree with Winston Churchill on this point. “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government ... except all the others that have been tried.”
IMHO, They're just trying to justify stamping out the free speech rights of their opposition. Even if they are not, that is what such a policy will inevitably lead to. In the long run (probably in the short run, too) this will be worse than tolerating the charismatic but useless leaders coming forth.
Of course, it still doesn't explain George W. Bush. He lead the country to ruin without being especially charismatic. |
|
 |