This is why I'm glad I'm not living in the USA. Every idiot can carry a gun, every idiot can become governour, every idiot can applaud the fact that human beings have been killed - by the very same state that should protect the lives of each of their citizens. Some might call this freedom and liberty, I call it irresponsible.

Strange coincidence that the video I watched immediately before this one was about a group of whale watchers spending an hour to save a young humpback that was hopelessly entangled in fishing nets.

From a celebration of life to a celebration of death in one click.

complete blog post from Goldy at The Stranger -- I thought this was great (emphasis added):

One of the more telling moments from last night's Republican presidential debate was when the audience at the Reagan Library broke out in wild applause at the mention of 234 death row inmates executed in Texas on Gov. Rick Perry's watch... no doubt some of whom were innocent.

I can understand why some people might support capital punishment, particularly the families of victims, although I personally oppose the practice on a number of grounds. But I have zero empathy for those who would applaud Texas's prolific rate of execution, as if it were something to aspire to. The brutal vindictiveness of many in the Republican base is never more on display than when they cheer an execution or two (or 234) as if it were a game-winning touchdown.

There is an interesting analogy to be made with the similarly hot-button issue of abortion, where the anti-abortion-rights forces adopted the "Pro-Life" label in order to imply that their Pro-Choice opponents were in fact Pro-Death. Of course, we're not. We're not even "Pro-Abortion" per se. While we may loudly cheer legislative and legal victories that support the right to reproductive choice, I'd wager that nobody has ever heard a round of hearty applause arise at the tally of aborted fetuses. Through improved education, counseling, and access to effective birth control, the goal has always been to make abortion safe, legal, and rare, with no particular extra emphasis on any one of those three objectives over the others. An abortion may evoke in some a sense of relief, but it's hard to imagine that it has ever been a cause for celebration.

One would think that even the most ardent capital punishment supporters (many of whom ironically self-identify as Pro-Life) would be more respectful of the awesome responsibility that comes with government sanctioned executions. But judging from that disturbing moment in last night's debate, apparently not.

And big kudos to Brian Williams for asking the follow up question -- what do you think about these cheers? I have always liked this guy -- he is one class act.

I found it really hard to fap to this.

Education is all I can think of when I see stuff like this. People who cheer things like that simply aren't educated.

EDIT: Also you have to be concerned with the education of Parry because he clearly didn't understand the question. The question was essentially do you lose any sleep over possibly executing innocent people? To which he replied that if you commit a heinous crime you should be put to death. I understand in this country with our sound-bite media that a candidate cannot be heard to utter something that could be perceived to go against their supporters wishes. However I really wish in a public debate we had instead of Brian Williams a man who knows exactly what's going on and allows it we had someone like David Mitchell because there is no way he would let that go. He would've kept pressing him until he made him look like the utter retard he is.

I wish I could promote this comment. Instead, I'll just have to promote Goldy the Stranger's website, and particular the blog post this comes from...

*five minutes after searching "Rick Perry" on the site*

Holy shit, Dick Perry is so much more of an ignorant, hateful, despicable corporate shill of a fundie rethuglican candidate than I could've imagined! This post in particular got to me, and not just because it involves Switzerland's biggest, evilist bank (UBS) either:

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/08/25/rick-perry-wanted-to-profit-on-dead-texas-teachers

"Let's bet on how quick we can tire old teachers into dying and make killer bucks off their hard earned savings, yay!!"


p.s.: Another tidbit of Perryntelligenz: Gay marriage, dangerous and bad. Texting while driving, a-okay.


>> ^bareboards2:

complete blog post from Goldy at The Stranger -- I thought this was great (emphasis added):
One of the more telling moments from last night's Republican presidential debate was when the audience at the Reagan Library broke out in wild applause at the mention of 234 death row inmates executed in Texas on Gov. Rick Perry's watch... no doubt some of whom were innocent.
I can understand why some people might support capital punishment, particularly the families of victims, although I personally oppose the practice on a number of grounds. But I have zero empathy for those who would applaud Texas's prolific rate of execution, as if it were something to aspire to. The brutal vindictiveness of many in the Republican base is never more on display than when they cheer an execution or two (or 234) as if it were a game-winning touchdown.
There is an interesting analogy to be made with the similarly hot-button issue of abortion, where the anti-abortion-rights forces adopted the "Pro-Life" label in order to imply that their Pro-Choice opponents were in fact Pro-Death. Of course, we're not. We're not even "Pro-Abortion" per se. While we may loudly cheer legislative and legal victories that support the right to reproductive choice, I'd wager that nobody has ever heard a round of hearty applause arise at the tally of aborted fetuses. Through improved education, counseling, and access to effective birth control, the goal has always been to make abortion safe, legal, and rare, with no particular extra emphasis on any one of those three objectives over the others. An abortion may evoke in some a sense of relief, but it's hard to imagine that it has ever been a cause for celebration.

One would think that even the most ardent capital punishment supporters (many of whom ironically self-identify as Pro-Life) would be more respectful of the awesome responsibility that comes with government sanctioned executions. But judging from that disturbing moment in last night's debate, apparently not.

I don't approve 'cheering' capital punishment. Any life that is prematurely ended represents a loss of human potential, and in the case of death row inmates it also possibly represents a lost soul to boot. It is not a time for cheering. It is a time for sober introspection.

That being said - I don't accept the sentiment here. The cheering was misplaced enthusiasm - no more. The liberal left is guilty of FAR more 'disturbing' behavior than a cheer in support of the concept of capital punishment. Every day the neolibs falsely label and impugn the Tea Party, GOP, & anyone else they dislike as racists... The practice threats, violence, and intimidation at average folks who do nothing more but dare to disagree with thier agendas. They also regularly seek to ban, shut down, or censor any dissent from thier self-appointed mantras. This is far more disturbing than a cheer for capital punishment because it is a regular, pervasive, constant practice.

Perry's response was just fine. There is nothing wrong with capital punishment as a penalty for those who have abrogated their right to participate in human society through their own actions. I reject the progressive argument of moral equivalency that seeks to state that there is no crime which a person can commit that warrents capital punishment. I also reject the argument that because the justice system is not 100% perfect, it dictates that capital punishment should not exist within it.

Oh, I think he understood damned well. He just doesn't have a problem if one of the innocent darkies gets executed on his watch. I'm actually not against the death penalty in theory. Even the way he (quite panderingly so) states it is fairly simple: I don't have a problem with a bat-shit crazy serial killer rapist being put to death.

The problem is that the actual enforcement of the death penalty is just racist. White criminals and black criminals don't get the same sentences for the same crimes.


Of course, there is the issue of innocent people being put to death too and I definitely have a problem with a death-penalty case which is nebulous. Say something there they don't have direct evidence and the links to the criminal are circumstantial.

That said, I would have no problem with someone like Jeffrey Dahmer being put to death. Caught red-handed and guilty of unspeakable horror and cruelty... fry him up.

Edit: just one source for the whole racist aspects of the way that the death penalty is handled http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-penalty-black-and-white-who-lives-who-dies-who-decides

>> ^Yogi:

Education is all I can think of when I see stuff like this. People who cheer things like that simply aren't educated.
EDIT: Also you have to be concerned with the education of Parry because he clearly didn't understand the question. The question was essentially do you lose any sleep over possibly executing innocent people? To which he replied that if you commit a heinous crime you should be put to death. I understand in this country with our sound-bite media that a candidate cannot be heard to utter something that could be perceived to go against their supporters wishes. However I really wish in a public debate we had instead of Brian Williams a man who knows exactly what's going on and allows it we had someone like David Mitchell because there is no way he would let that go. He would've kept pressing him until he made him look like the utter retard he is.

I don't understand why you people want to protect pure evil, in the form of mass murderers, but not the lives of the unborn.

You want choice for the mother, but I can't choose which toilet or lightbulb I want.

Innocent people have been murdered by the state, in the form of capital punishment. How deep does your cognitive dissonance go?>> ^lantern53:

I don't understand why you people want to protect pure evil, in the form of mass murderers, but not the lives of the unborn.
You want choice for the mother, but I can't choose which toilet or lightbulb I want.

>> ^lantern53:

I don't understand why you people want to protect pure evil, in the form of mass murderers, but not the lives of the unborn.
You want choice for the mother, but I can't choose which toilet or lightbulb I want.


I don't see it as defending a mass-murderer when we say we don't want to invade a country. I see it as defending all the lives that we will destroy with our bombs and our destabilization of the region. We brought some awful horrors to Iraq and killed soo many people. True lefties were also against the strangling of Iraq that killed over 500,000 children which Madeline Albright said was worth it. And lefties were against supporting Saddam the mass-murderer when he was carrying out his mass-murdering atrocities.

So I have to ask...what are you talking about?

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

That said, I would have no problem with someone like Jeffrey Dahmer being put to death. Caught red-handed and guilty of unspeakable horror and cruelty... fry him up.



Oh yeah I'm not against the death penalty...there's people out there that do unspeakable things and deserve to die absolutely. However this blanket idea of capitol punishment I don't want my name to. Kill someone like the asshole that attacked our Army Base or a serial killer or something than yeah I'll pull the trigger myself.

But all this killing people because we have some evidence they may have killed someone obviously isn't fucking working. And I say that as the son of a murdered woman who's killer was never caught.

>> ^Yogi:

That said, I would have no problem with someone like Jeffrey Dahmer being put to death. Caught red-handed and guilty of unspeakable horror and cruelty... fry him up.

Oh yeah I'm not against the death penalty...there's people out there that do unspeakable things and deserve to die absolutely. However this blanket idea of capitol punishment I don't want my name to. Kill someone like the asshole that attacked our Army Base or a serial killer or something than yeah I'll pull the trigger myself.
But all this killing people because we have some evidence they may have killed someone obviously isn't fucking working. And I say that as the son of a murdered woman who's killer was never caught.


Exactly. The thing that is so frightening about this guy is that he does not acknowledge that the system CAN fail and that an error can cause an innocent person their life. The arrogance he displays by trying to imply that Texas doesn't make mistakes because they are so "thoughtful" about the process... please. In a state which is constantly trying to teach creationism, ban books, and prides itself on being uneducated... yeah, I want nothing of that "thoughtfulness" when a life is at stake.

I don't get why conservatives are mostly Christian. Why is it that the "godless left" are more inclined to follow Jesus teachings (forgiveness, charity, etc) than his supposedly biggest fan club?

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann

Here is a man that Perry allowed to be killed on his watch, who is almost certainly innocent. Turned down a plea deal and went to court, because he knew he was innocent.

It's a long article, and well worth the read.

You know Perry knows about him, too. He mentions "killer of children" in his reasoning of who should die.

Stupid Bible Belt Old Testament wrath. Give me New Testament any day. At least it is moral -- love thy neighbor as thyself, or whatever the heck the actual words are.

I don't get why conservatives are mostly Christian. Why is it that the "godless left" are more inclined to follow Jesus teachings (forgiveness, charity, etc) than his supposedly biggest fan club?

This statement demonstrates a lack of understanding of the principles of charity and forgiveness as Christ taught them. I do not say this with hostility. I really want to help you out here.

ISSUE ONE: "If you conservatives are so 'Christian' then why don't you do what he taught and help the poor/widows/whatever?"

Where neolibs make their blunder on this subject is in equating "giving money to government programs" with "charity". Christ taught people to personally help the poor & needy. He did not say, "Do it by giving your paycheck to the government."

When a conservative doesn't support a bloated, inefficient, ineffective, government program, it does NOT mean that they are not charitable and generous. However, the typical "godless liberal" (as you put it) thinks that conservatives are literally stealing money from poor people when they say they want to cut these programs. It is the exact opposite. Conservatives want to cut these bad programs so that ALL people everywhere keep more of their money. It is a conservative's firm belief that more people keeping more of their money will result in (A) fewer poor people and (B) more wealth that private citizens can use to help others via voluntary donation.

Conservatives help the poor and needy by volunteering thier own time and talents to help those in need - NOT by offloading that responsibliity into the hollow, empty, soulless 'substitute charity' of a government program. Studies have proven conservative individuals give more money and time to charitable causes compared to liberals. Without fanfare and without desire of reward, they help the needy through personal volunteerism. That is Christian behavior.

ISSUE TWO: "If you conservatives are so Christian then why do you want to kill people all the time?"

The mistake neolibs make here is that they think that forgiving someone also means that you do not try to hold them accountable for thier actions. Conservatives don't do that. They try to follow Christ's example of forgiving others (loving them as fellow children of God) while at the same time following Christ's teachings of personal accountablity and accepting responsibility for actions. Just because you love someone as a fellow child of God does not mean that you have to just let them do awful things without trying to hold them responsible. The warped view of forgiveness held by a liberal says conservatives should just never hold anyone responsible for anything or they aren't "Christian". That's complete bull crap.

Does that help?

On a final note - Bareboard above wrote about abortion. I'm paraphrasing, but essentially his point was that when liberals cheer abortions they are not cheering the killing of babies - they are celebrating freedom of choice. Likewise, it can be said that when conservatives cheer capital punishment they are not cheering the death of a person - they are cheering their support of JUSTICE. Accept or reject that as you will, but if a person only beleives the 'good' stuff about thier side and only the 'bad' stuff about people they don't like then that says a lot about them.

^or how to miss @bareboards2's point ENTIRELY.

http://prodeathpenalty.com/

Why don't you lefties go read up on some of the vermin on death row?

They're not nice people, and most are LONG past due for removal.


Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.

This is why I'm glad I'm not living in the USA. Every idiot (or non-idiot) can carry a gun, every idiot (or non idiot) can become governour, every idiot (or non idiot) can applaud the fact that human beings have been killed - by the very same state that should protect the lives of each of their citizens. Some might call this freedom and liberty, some I call it irresponsible.

Just a judgement call, but would bet the applauding audience wasn't made up entirely of Texans, and pretty sure that Texas isn't the only state with a death penalty, so why the title "...Welcome to Texas...". Why not one of the other 34 states that have a death penalty, or hey, why not "Welcome to California" where the debate was actually held, and presumably Californians made up a good chunk of the applauding audience(?).

Oh, and DerHasisttot... putting a needle into these psychopathic reprobates is a great way to protect citizens of the state. Next time one of these 'reformed' mass murdering fuckheads kicks your door in and threatens to rape your wife, kill your kids and burn your house down, good luck with the 911 call. I'm sure your new houseguest will give you some time to reflect on your upstanding humanitarianism, and whether your principles will keep you from getting skull fucked after he shoots you in the head. Me, I'd sooner have the gun. Not a great way to live, but at least you live.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

ISSUE ONE: "If you conservatives are so 'Christian' then why don't you do what he taught and help the poor/widows/whatever?"
Where neolibs make their blunder on this subject is in equating "giving money to government programs" with "charity". Christ taught people to personally help the poor & needy. He did not say, "Do it by giving your paycheck to the government."
When a conservative doesn't support a bloated, inefficient, ineffective, government program, it does NOT mean that they are not charitable and generous. However, the typical "godless liberal" (as you put it) thinks that conservatives are literally stealing money from poor people when they say they want to cut these programs. It is the exact opposite. Conservatives want to cut these bad programs so that ALL people everywhere keep more of their money. It is a conservative's firm belief that more people keeping more of their money will result in (A) fewer poor people and (B) more wealth that private citizens can use to help others via voluntary donation.
Conservatives help the poor and needy by volunteering thier own time and talents to help those in need - NOT by offloading that responsibliity into the hollow, empty, soulless 'substitute charity' of a government program. Studies have proven conservative individuals give more money and time to charitable causes compared to liberals. Without fanfare and without desire of reward, they help the needy through personal volunteerism. That is Christian behavior.


Ok, good point. No wait, that's utter bollocks. The conservative agenda has systematically set up the economy over the last 50 years so that poor people are poorer and the middle class is disappearing. And then they bitch and whine when asked to contribute a few extra dollars.


>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

ISSUE TWO: "If you conservatives are so Christian then why do you want to kill people all the time?"
The mistake neolibs make here is that they think that forgiving someone also means that you do not try to hold them accountable for thier actions. Conservatives don't do that. They try to follow Christ's example of forgiving others (loving them as fellow children of God) while at the same time following Christ's teachings of personal accountablity and accepting responsibility for actions. Just because you love someone as a fellow child of God does not mean that you have to just let them do awful things without trying to hold them responsible. The warped view of forgiveness held by a liberal says conservatives should just never hold anyone responsible for anything or they aren't "Christian". That's complete bull crap.
Does that help?


It helps to show how little attention conservatives pay to their own religion. So Christ was just kidding about "turn the other cheek"? You can hold someone accountable without killing them in cold blood. Yeah, a lot of the people on death row are evil fuckers. But they're confined. Killing them serves no purpose (other than to cost the state a fortune, where's your "small government" now?)

And you're being utterly disingenuous to pretend they're "cheering for justice". That is bullshit and you know it. They are cheering for vengence.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

So Christ was just kidding about "turn the other cheek"?

In those days, you would strike someone of lower social standing with the back of your left hand. If they turned their head to the left, exposing the right cheek, it would force the aggressor to punch them, slap them with the palm, or use the right hand. These are actions that would be used to challenge someone of equal standing. By turning the other cheek, you were forcing them to either treat you as an equal or stop assaulting you.

It was an act of defiance, not pacifism, and does not really support your argument.

>> ^quantumushroom:

http://prodeathpenalty.com/
Why don't you lefties go read up on some of the vermin on death row?
They're not nice people, and most are LONG past due for removal.

Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.


Didn't read my post did you...read it now...is it unreasonable?

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
So Christ was just kidding about "turn the other cheek"?
In those days, you would strike someone of lower social standing with the back of your left hand. If they turned their head to the left, exposing the right cheek, it would force the aggressor to punch them, slap them with the palm, or use the right hand. These are actions that would be used to challenge someone of equal standing. By turning the other cheek, you were forcing them to either treat you as an equal or stop assaulting you.
It was an act of defiance, not pacifism, and does not really support your argument.


Uh huh...and where is this documented? Because it could be utter bullshit.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^ChaosEngine:
So Christ was just kidding about "turn the other cheek"?
In those days, you would strike someone of lower social standing with the back of your left hand. If they turned their head to the left, exposing the right cheek, it would force the aggressor to punch them, slap them with the palm, or use the right hand. These are actions that would be used to challenge someone of equal standing. By turning the other cheek, you were forcing them to either treat you as an equal or stop assaulting you.
It was an act of defiance, not pacifism, and does not really support your argument.

Uh huh...and where is this documented? Because it could be utter bullshit.


It seems I got the left/right hand part mixed up, but the point stands...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_3_29/ai_n11838798/
http://www.voiceofrevolution.com/2009/01/13/what-does-turn-the-other-cheek-really-mean/
http://www.zcommunications.org/christian-nonviolence-by-walter-wink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek

Here's a simple justice test Dick Perry uses to sleep at night: Has anyone white and wealthy been executed? Nope. Nighty Night.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^ChaosEngine:
So Christ was just kidding about "turn the other cheek"?
In those days, you would strike someone of lower social standing with the back of your left hand. If they turned their head to the left, exposing the right cheek, it would force the aggressor to punch them, slap them with the palm, or use the right hand. These are actions that would be used to challenge someone of equal standing. By turning the other cheek, you were forcing them to either treat you as an equal or stop assaulting you.
It was an act of defiance, not pacifism, and does not really support your argument.

Uh huh...and where is this documented? Because it could be utter bullshit.

It seems I got the left/right hand part mixed up, but the point stands...
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_3_29/ai_n11838798/
http://www.voiceofrevolution.com/2009/01/13/what-does-t
urn-the-other-cheek-really-mean/
http://www.zcommunications.org/christian-nonviolence-by-walter-wink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek


I went to none of those links...it's too bad you have NO evidence to support what you claimed.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^ChaosEngine:
So Christ was just kidding about "turn the other cheek"?
In those days, you would strike someone of lower social standing with the back of your left hand. If they turned their head to the left, exposing the right cheek, it would force the aggressor to punch them, slap them with the palm, or use the right hand. These are actions that would be used to challenge someone of equal standing. By turning the other cheek, you were forcing them to either treat you as an equal or stop assaulting you.
It was an act of defiance, not pacifism, and does not really support your argument.

Uh huh...and where is this documented? Because it could be utter bullshit.

It seems I got the left/right hand part mixed up, but the point stands...
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_3_29/ai_n11838798/
http://www.voiceofrevolution.com/2009/01/13/what-does-t
urn-the-other-cheek-really-mean/
http://www.zcommunications.org/christian-nonviolence-by-walter-wink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek


Hey, thanks for the links... every single one of which refutes your original point that:

"it was an act of defiance, not pacifism..."

I think you're a bit confused about what "pacifism" means. Pacifism is not against defiance; pacifism is against the use of violence to achieve political or personal aims. For example, Rosa Parks refusing to move to the back of the bus was both defiant and pacifist in nature--she used non-violent means to protest the unjust laws of that time. Turning the other cheek--in the historical sense you described--therefore is indeed both an act of defiance and pacifist in nature.

So @ChaosEngine 's original point stands--people who are Christian and support the death penalty would seem to indeed be ignoring Christ's teachings (in addition to the mounds of evidence that show the death penalty is neither cost effective nor a strong deterrent to crime).

>> ^SDGundamX:

Hey, thanks for the links... every single one of which refutes your original point that:
"it was an act of defiance, not pacifism..."
I think you're a bit confused about what "pacifism" means. Pacifism is not against defiance; pacifism is against the use of violence to achieve political or personal aims. For example, Rosa Parks refusing to move to the back of the bus was both defiant and pacifist in nature--she used non-violent means to protest the unjust laws of that time. Turning the other cheek--in the historical sense you described--therefore is indeed both an act of defiance and pacifist in nature.
So @ChaosEngine 's original point stands--people who are Christian and support the death penalty would seem to indeed be ignoring Christ's teachings (in addition to the mounds of evidence that show the death penalty is neither cost effective nor a strong deterrent to crime).

It's pacifism-compatible because it's not calling for violence. It's not, however, an instruction to let all transgressions slide as so many people believe.

As for @ChaosEngine's point, I do not disagree with it and was not trying to tear it down. I just think the "turn the other cheek" part doesn't support it very well.

The conservative agenda has systematically set up the economy over the last 50 years so that poor people are poorer and the middle class is disappearing.

What you mistakenly blame on conservatives is actually caused by the increase in government and the centralization of power. Larger government in bed with industry results in crony capitalism that steers wealth to large government and large companies. This is not the conservative agenda. That is the LIBERAL agenda which is promulgated by both democrats and the GOP. Fiscal conservatives want nothing to do with it. That is what the Tea Party is all about. Do you want to improve income disparity? Join the Tea Party and elect more fiscal conservatives to pare down big government, and knee-cap the crony capitalism that results from it.

So Christ was just kidding about "turn the other cheek"? You can hold someone accountable without killing them in cold blood.

First off – no one is killing in cold blood. That’s just your bias talking.

Second - Christ teaching people to avoid anger and revenge in their personal lives has nothing to do with capital punishment. A person can follow the turn the other cheek philosophy in their personal lives, and yet still support capital punishment for society’s guilty. Capital punishment isn’t about revenge. It is about justice.

And you're being utterly disingenuous to pretend they're "cheering for justice". That is BS and you know it. They are cheering for vengeance.

Who are you to say that? Are you a mind reader? Do you have psychic powers? Of course not. You’re just another biased neolib who is projecting your own anger and hatred onto other people. You say its BS. Well, could not someone else say it is “BS” to claim that neolibs are cheering ‘free choice’ when they applaud the murdering of innocent children? See how that works? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

I really don't see what your post has to do with my encouragement for leftists to read up on death row inmates.

You wrote:

But all this killing people because we have some evidence they may have killed someone obviously isn't fucking working.

The State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. In most death penalty cases it does so, and admirably. The idea that the State is sloppily sending innocents to death row left and right is not supportable at this time.





>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
http://prodeathpenalty.com/
Why don't you lefties go read up on some of the vermin on death row?
They're not nice people, and most are LONG past due for removal.

Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.

Didn't read my post did you...read it now...is it unreasonable?

>> ^quantumushroom:

I really don't see what your post has to do with my encouragement for leftists to read up on death row inmates.
You wrote:
But all this killing people because we have some evidence they may have killed someone obviously isn't fucking working.
The State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. In most death penalty cases it does so, and admirably. The idea that the State is sloppily sending innocents to death row left and right is not supportable at this time.


>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
http://prodeathpenalty.com/
Why don't you lefties go read up on some of the vermin on death row?
They're not nice people, and most are LONG past due for removal.

Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.

Didn't read my post did you...read it now...is it unreasonable?



I'm sorry but what do you mean "not supportable" it's been proven over and over that there are obvious screw ups.

1. Innocent people are executed.
2. It costs more to execute than to keep in prison for life.

Leave the bad guys in prison. Don't kill anyone. These aren't mutually exclusive.

The need to kill is the need for revenge. Pure and simple. It isn't logical or reasonable given Facts.



>> ^quantumushroom:

http://prodeathpenalty.com/
Why don't you lefties go read up on some of the vermin on death row?
They're not nice people, and most are LONG past due for removal.

Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.

Even if capital punishment was morally legitimate (which I don't think it is), and even if we could justifiably say that each of the 234 executed prisoners was actually guilt of the crimes for which s/he was sentenced (which I don't believe is even statistically accurate), it would still be grotesque to react to the execution of human life with cheers and applause, as the audience does here.

Certainly, a mood of solemnity and regret would be more appropriate. Meanwhile, Christian Conservative Republicans hoot and howl over executions in the same way their forebears reveled in watching the Christians being thrown to the lions for entertainment. Such hypocrisy is not just shocking and appalling, it's indefensibly dangerous.