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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
More happiness isn't a moral argument. It might make more people happy to have capital punishment, but that isn't a moral justification. So do go on and on.
Capital punishment doesn't make people happy, and a society that inflicts it on people who are sometimes completely innocent makes people really unhappy.
As for "happiness isn't a moral argument", the right way to think of it is "how is it moral to arrange society so that vast classes of people are unhappy?"
Maybe you have an answer for that, maybe you don't, but it's not an invalid moral question to raise.


People can be unhappy for valid and invalid reasons. Happiness is an emotion. Happiness isn't rational. Happiness is related directly to what makes us animals, not humans. Happiness has no proper gauge, it has no measure, it has no quantifiable meaning outside of personal subjective experience. Something that makes one person sad, makes another happy. Some people like being mad, which makes others unhappy, which makes some people happy. Happy is a useless idea for basing moral arguments. I am staring to hold that Aspergers is the next stage needed in humans to put aside these silly emotional states that tie us to animal notions of morality. If we want to be better than pigs and rats, then happy needs to die, and soon.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

More happiness isn't a moral argument. It might make more people happy to have capital punishment, but that isn't a moral justification. So do go on and on.

Capital punishment doesn't make people happy, and a society that inflicts it on people who are sometimes completely innocent makes people really unhappy.

As for "happiness isn't a moral argument", the right way to think of it is "how is it moral to arrange society so that vast classes of people are unhappy?"

Maybe you have an answer for that, maybe you don't, but it's not an invalid moral question to raise.

More happiness isn't a moral argument. It might make more people happy to have capital punishment, but that isn't a moral justification. So do go on and on.

>> ^heropsycho:

Except everyone is happier, everyone has more freedom, everyone is subjected to less crime, everyone's businesses are better off... I could go on and on.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
That isn't a moral counter argument. It might be better for economy to have a dictator, but the pressures of commerce shouldn't drive morality, less you get us into our current economic crisis. Economics shouldn't be the founding principal for justification, unless your Ferengi.
>> ^heropsycho:
Because the economy works better for everyone, even you, when that's done an appropriate amount. How much more is debatable, but the basic principle still true regardless.
>> ^pyloricvalve:
Why is it morally justified to impose a higher tax rate on the more highly paid? I'm already paying twenty people's worth.. Why should it be more?

capital punishment????? for stealing??

No Sir!!

This is muddle-headed bullshit by Ana Kasparian pretending to think about "serious issues" and trumpeting her E-Z Pik Progressive Opinion: that she's outraged by the awfulness of the War on Drugs only because blacks are getting arrested too much (and that she doesn't think taking drugs is a crime). Look how puffed up she gets, pausing for effect after repeating the statistic about more blacks in U.S. prisons today than there were slaves in (just to pick a date) 1850.

Says it all, doesn't it?

Anyone who watches the Young Turks when Ana is talking knows she is judgmental as hell. She normally advocates the harshest prison sentences, likes the work of Child Protective Services and wouldn't promote anything she didn't truly believe in — not even for (really) "a billion dollars." So you can believe her when she tells you Kim Kardashian's thighs are fat!

Cenk is clearer that the WoSD is the true problem and that poverty — not race — is the salient factor in who *does time* (as opposed to whatever Ana is officially pissed-off about) — that the results are cruel for everyone. I thought that might be why he tells the story of a (presumably white) Montana dude facing life for passing a bong in his car, except he makes a point of agreeing that the guy did do something wrong.

Ana rounds out her simulacrum of thought-provoking opinion by noting the injustice of blacks getting arrested for drug crimes even though violent crime statistics have been trending downward in urban areas. Sounds heavy. Dunno why exactly ...

Still, two and a half million people in cages across the USA rejoice to hear their story is finally being told and eagerly await Ana's future Social Studies Presentations. Upcoming Topics will include: "What is the Proper Speed Limit on the Interstate?", "Is Capital Punishment Bad?", and "Euthanasia, School Uniforms, Gun Control and Test Tube Babies: What I think for less than $ 1 billion"

She doesn't get that "the Liberal Media" is pro-homosexuality AND pro-Muslim, but Muslims kill gay people. However, she apparently understands however the Christian right, who are anti-homosexuality, and anti-Muslim. Why isn't she pro-Muslim since they "kill gays"?

More proof that if you just let morons talk long enough, they'll prove to everyone they're morons.

Reminds me of a girl in high school who argued against capital punishment because, "It's more humane not to kill someone. Besides, they'll suffer more if you put them in jail for life." When I pointed out she simultaneously wanted to be humane but make people suffer more, she quickly succumbed to a fit of rage, and then STFU. If only that would work with these clowns.

Kalle -

I would discourage your mocking use of my "magic book" to support your arguments unless you actually understood what's in it.

You shall not kill/murder is number 6, for starters. This is also a commandment of personal conduct. The very same section of the Bible outlines various capital crimes, almost none of which carry the penalty of death in this day and age. I'm just pointing out that the sixth commandment does not preclude capital punishment. I should not personally seek revenge through a crime of passion, but society was granted recourse at that level. See also Romans 13, particularly verse 4. Governing authorities have not been given "the sword for no reason."

Please, dispense with the shrill atheistic arguments of breaking the Sabbath being a capital crime. The whole point of the law, from the Christian perspective, is to illustrate that we all fall short of it. The penalty for sin...all sin...is death. You're talking to someone who has been spared from the death penalty through the sacrifice of my savior. I am not a "hang 'em high" proponent of the death penalty. In all cases, I would prefer grace.

You managed to completely circumvent the entire point of my argument. Instead of addressing the injustice of killing innocent life, you chose to dilute the need to punish criminals to normalize the difference between the two.

welcome to the sift. we is proto-facists here.

In reply to this comment by cowboydan:
>> ^Shepppard:

People wonder why some cops are slightly hostile to them?


I don't think they do. It's because they carry guns, act like assholes and order people around. There are good cops, undoubtedly who take more of a subtle approach and are really looking to help out in their community, but all the terrible ones overshadow that, and there are far to many of them.



"The most absurd apology for authority and law is that they serve to diminish crime. Aside from the fact that the State is itself the greatest criminal, breaking every written and natural law, stealing in the form of taxes, killing in the form of war and capital punishment, it has come to an absolute standstill in coping with crime. It has failed utterly to destroy or even minimize the horrible scourge of its own creation." - Emma Goldman

Oh, Ive interacted with cops a lot. They were German cops, but if any they would actually be more calm and more humane than American or Canadian. But I never noticed that. Sure, as cowboydan said, there are very nice ones, but they are rare.
All the other I know are arrogant assholes who even tend to have a slight tendency to sadism. They are almost always on a power trip, and if you for some reason dont act submissive (especially if youre younger than them), they will let you know that you have just crossed the line. They know very well their powers and that youre all but a wussy citizen, who can be arrested for bullshit, if they just want to.
Power corrupts. nuff said.


>> ^Shepppard:

>> ^cowboydan:
>> ^Shepppard:
People wonder why some cops are slightly hostile to them?

I don't think they do. It's because they carry guns, act like assholes and order people around. There are good cops, undoubtedly who take more of a subtle approach and are really looking to help out in their community, but all the terrible ones overshadow that, and there are far to many of them.

"The most absurd apology for authority and law is that they serve to diminish crime. Aside from the fact that the State is itself the greatest criminal, breaking every written and natural law, stealing in the form of taxes, killing in the form of war and capital punishment, it has come to an absolute standstill in coping with crime. It has failed utterly to destroy or even minimize the horrible scourge of its own creation." - Emma Goldman

Really, I'd LOVE to know your interactions with police. I've probably had more interaction with cops then anybody on the sift EVER will, and what you just described to me is complete and utter bullshit that you seem to be stringing together from bad youtube videos.