EBSB52

You seem to act like you look down on everyone elses responses. You brush them off by trying to belittle them, so it seemed like a good question to ask since only you can answer it. You seem to act like you look down on everyone elses responses. You brush them off by trying to belittle them, so it seemed like a good question to ask since only you can answer it. Ron, if any of us come off smarter than thou, sorry, just answer the points.

Why is it you think you know more than everyone else? Because we are making cogent arguments rather than simple one-liners. Honestly, tak all the arguments we've posted and post answers - that's what I want. If you did, you would have to state that it's a great thing to kill kids when they are convicted of crimes, mistakes happen, but oh well, and the deterrence value of cap pun is a facade when cap pun itself is guilty of killing innocent people.

So I don't have to pay for his/her damn living in prison for 40 years. Forget the chair, and lethal injection too.... too expensive! I say use a $0.38 bullet to the head....done! And what would you say to Ray Krone's family, who supported him well, if you're abreviated, 'kill em now' mentality didn;t allow the 10 years for him to prove himself innocent? http://www.ccadp.org/raykrone.htm "Krone was a proponent of the death penalty before he was sent to prison. He thinks differently now after having lost ten years of his life and sentenced to death as an innocent person, while the guilty perpetrator was at the loose during that decade, free to prey on more victims."

So does life in prison. So if that is the only purpose it serves, there is really no reason to keep it around. __________________________________________________ True, but does that punishment fit the crime? I don't think so. What you don't seem to understand is someone lost their life to these people, did they get a choice to finish out their lives? So, my personal opinion is that the person who took their life does not deserve to finish out the rest of their life. This looks at the beneficial side of executing truely heinous people, but ignores what happens when inncoent people get executed. Wait, it doesn't ignore it, it runs like hell from the issue, just like posters in here!

Really? What purpose? __________________________________________________ It takes predators off the street........permanently. And so does incarrcration w/o parole - how does killing them make them more removed than living in a box forever?

Then we dig deeper and find, "Jessy Carlos San Miguel is scheduled to be put to death on June 29, 2000 for his role in the 1991 robbery of a Taco Bell restaurant in Irving, Texas in which four people were killed." Only four? Dang. They mention Karla Faye Tucker, whose conversion to Christianity - and cuteness - was argued, rather than her having orgasms at pickaxing people to death. Juan Raul Garza - only murdered three drug dealers to maintain his status as kingpin. Domingo Cantu "Executed October 28, 1999. Domingo was a Native from the White Mountain Apache tribe, and an artist. He had been on Death Row in Texas for over a decade pleading for help for a simple DNA test which was refused by Texas courts, until recently. " Well, you find out the DNA test was one to show the blood on him was not the victim's. DNA test proved it was. Supporters funded this request. All he did was grab his 94 year-old victim "in the front yard of her home and dragged her across her patio into the back yard, then hauled the 97-pound woman over a 4-foot-high chain-link fence, beat, raped and sodomized her." Autopsy found 8 broken ribs and death by head wounds after her head was repeatedly slammed into the concrete. He was found minutes after the murder by police who found him running and covered with blood and feces. Oh, yeah, he admitted to assaulting a woman at a bus stop hours before and taking her purse. He tried to run from the ourtroom during trial. He also stabbed another inmate in the throat later on. It's so interesting to see these condemned murderers seeking to make themselves martyrs against an "unjust" system. It's sad that assholes like Cantu make it so much tougher for those who ARE innocent to be believed. Right, Utilitarian. That is why the pro-cap pun folks like execution; Utilitarianism. Then you find that Utilitarianism was the foundation for Communism by Stalin, you learn that controlling means of production is at the cornerstone of Communism, and that Fascism (indivisible marriage between corporation and government) has taken ahold of the US since about 1980 and you understand that the US used to reject these ideologies but now embraces major parts of them and you just want to get away. Democracy means little in regard to freedom, as Hitler was elected. Execution is a reaction to what the major system has to offer, it's a byproduct of the larger problem.

Exactly, nothing like a good killing to make me feel good. __________________________________________________ At least you said "killing" instead of "murder". And, since it is an execution of a convicted murderer and drug dealer, I don't care who does it. Does it make me feel good? No. Does it serve a purpose? Yes. And that purpose is..... 1. Pave the way for innocent people to be executed 2. Cost 2 to 3 times more, or more tna life w/o parole 3. Establish an atmosphere of killing for our kids to see Incapacitation can be accomplished via life w/o parole, so can you please tell me what good it does? Saying that the person can get out doesn't support your claim, as prisoners don't get out unless they prove themselves innocent from behind bars, and then we want them out, right? Oh, they can escape. That's an indictment of the penal system, not the justice system. To say that we should kill them so they don't escape is like saying we should chain our kids at home so they don't sneak out at night. Again, other than simple rhetoric, cap pun is indefensable.... there are attorneys on the board, I would love to hear arguments

None of the cases being investigated, which rolls the jurisdiction back to the county; do we want counties executing people? __________________________________________________ "Garza, 44, was convicted of murdering a man by shooting him five times in the head and neck and ordering the deaths of two other men. It was all part of Garza's marijuana smuggling operation, which federal prosecutors say he ran ruthlessly." I'm not so sure I care who puts em down, county, state, federal, as long as it gets done. Right, and that's not the argument. I would have to read more about that case and ensure that he was the one, etc, etc.... The anti-cap pun argument isn't here to protect the lives of scum, even though most are, they are here to protect that one or two guys that get caught in the crack. Actually it's probably more than 1 or 2, but it is a slim minority. It seems most pro-cap pun folks rant about the Constitution this, Constitutin that, well the US Constitution is here to protect the rights of the individual over the rights of the whole, a concept that refutes Utilitarianism, yet pro-cap pun guys look past that , or aren't intellectual enough to understand it (most likely).

None of the cases being investigated, which rolls the jurisdiction back to the county; do we want counties executing people? However, counties are responsible for carrying out the state's criminal prosecutions. Would it make sense to try all Texas criminal cases in Austin? Fuck no. Let the counties do it. That's their job, and why the "District Attorney" prosecutes instead of the State Attorney (with certain exceptions). There are some interesting things in there, like the defiinition of "Texecution" identifying it as an "execution without reprieve." Um, most deaths meet that criteria. Um, counties do not execute. tHe state executes. I know, wasn't it clear that I was saying when the state rubber stamps it that the jurisdiction for the execution essentially rolls back to the county? Sure it was. I realize you don't want to admit that, but when, let's say Bush ignores the entire death warrant but the signature block, that means execution presented by the county to the governor will not be scrutinized, hence a fair investigation/trial is not neccessary. I wrote: "None of the cases being investigated, which rolls the jurisdiction back to the county; do we want counties executing people?" Is that not clear? I love propoganda like that. I think parts of it could be sensational enough to call propaganda, especially since they sarcastically call our commander in chimp, "The Texecutioner." But there is a lot of fact in there too.

WOW, I want my 30 seconds back! Hey, I was catering to my audience - neo-cons. Yet another misdirection. Can't you guys address the truth to the 155 Texecutions they claim to have transpired w/o investigation? There's plemty of valid stuff in there. All you guys do is to continue to re-validate my position.

The Real horror is all the people that don't know how to make clickys Let's see, the neo-con execution lovers critique me about: 1. Posting a site and making it so they have to a. open another browser b. cut-n-paste the website onto the new addy block c. hit, "enter" 2. Saying that I thought it was about 100 years ago when the US last killed one of its own for refusing to kill the enemy after a draft, when it was 60 years. Irony is that their own neo-con buddy stated it was 50 years and was wrong, but there was no mention of that. I've figured it out; these neo-cons spend a lot of time watching The Price is Right, and they don't like people going over the estimate, even if they're wrong, be wrong in a mitigated fashion, hence conservative. Hey neo-cons, it sure beats addressing the substantive issues, huh? I've written all along - the neo-con agenda is indefensable, so they divert to other irrelevant issues. Thanks for not letting me down, American neo-con.

You shoulda said, "No, but you can be arrested for looking at naked pics of me when I was a young child."

One criticism of the melting pot metaphor; it suggests we assimilate to be the same/look the same. The new-fangled way to understand it is, "mixing bowl." A mixing bowl can have all kinds of different things co-existing in harmony, but have different appearances. Just a PC thing they throw at ya in college - I kinda see the validity.

None of the cases being investigated, which rolls the jurisdiction back to the county; do we want counties executing people?

That's dated 1915, which places us at the start of WWI. Women hadn't yet even earned (EDIT: a right that should have been inherent and inalienable; they fought for it rather than earned it) the right to vote, and slavery was just abolished 52 years prior, even though forms of it were still in place for some decades later. We hadn't even seen Japanese-American internment or having seperate public restrooms and fountains, that kind of racism was too advanced for us meaning we were far worse that that in 1915. Antimiscegination laws allowed for the deportation of women that married non-white males were still in place too. So to think that in the middle of a major world war, and with civil rights meaning linchings were the soup de jour, I hardly recognize your reference as anything but an interesting piece of nostalgia. So this reference is moot to me.

http://ccadp.org/serialpresident.htm

Yep there WAS a divide. By demanding that they be called something different than everyone else, they just make that divide bigger. I don't know if people called themselves by origin with a hyphen in the 40's, but I doubt they did. I'm thinking they would have been ostracized if they did. So, if that's true, then the internment came first. Blacks, when they came form Africa, probably did not call themselves African-American, especially since they weren't even considered humans by our great (hack, cough, puke) founding fathers. The 1890's Chinese exclusion act prohibited the immigration of Chinese people for a while; do you think they had the dare to call themselves Chinese-Americans? We can go on and on, and BTW, I'm of Irish descent, but what I'm saying here is that the atrocities occurred before the hyphenation, so maybe it's a form of liberation. Also, don't insult any of us by pretending you understand what it's like to walk down the sidewalk or apply for a job when you're black, Asian, Hispanic, etc... Who said otherwise? I asked why they have to be called (anything) Americans, and not just Americans? That's like asking why, "they" have to be called gay. If I want to change my name to, "$&(((*(*," and then hyphenate it with, "-American" I will. You can be who you are/who you want all you wish, however you just widen the differences by doing this. Perhaps, or, "they" might think it establishes their culture. The divide was initiated by the white man, Irish, English, Scottish, etc..; the hyphenation was a reaction to the oppression of the white man. I am ALL for treating people as people reguardless of color. I don't see color. I don't care about race. But I have others try to force me to accept them as different...But then listen to them bitch about it later. Well, you have enough vigor to initiate this thread, so you must be motivated by something. How is it that you are being forced - please explain. Do people correct you when you address them as Americans? Do they get insistent and angry if you refuse to use the hyphen? It was not me that put them in internment camps....And I bet most Americans of Japanese descent were not in one. You have the same ignorance that I did before I entered college. 110,000 Japanese-Americans were interned losing most of their valuables along the way. To prove their Americanness they formed the 442nd Infantry and were amongst the fiercest fighting unit in WWII. The Americans obviously placed them in the European theatre and they went through France and Italy as I recall. So, my hateful friend, they have earned the right to use the hyphen, if you don't like it, get some counseling and maybe the nice doctor will give you a bottle of pills to ease your anger. I was told I can leave if I don't like it, I will say to you that you can leave if you don't like it; it being living in a heterogeneous society. You remember the little African symbols blacks used to wear about 13 years ago? Well, how do you think people would act if I wore a little symbol of England around my neck, and talked about "English American" Pride? I would be called a racist. Its a double standard that seems to be OK. No, I don't recall them. There is FUBU, other than that I don't know. A concept of racism is that it isn't pure majority that established who may control via race, it's who has the majority of power. This is exemplified by looking at South Africa of past. So since white America has the majority and the majority of power/money, then we can only be the oppressors or not; we cannot be oppressed. I hate that concept, but it is true. That's why a Socialist government is the best, since the power is more evenly distributed and race/bias/oppression is controlled by the government rather than by corporations or the individual rich/well-off people. As for what would people think about your necklace, I don't think they would care. But it is apples/oranges since white America is derived in large part from the UK. I find it funny that people bitch about being equal, then do everything they can to seperate themselves. The separation occurred before the hyphens, get your sequence/chronology straight.

Tell that to Japanese-Americans during WWII. There was divide, so they do have the right to acknowledge their heritage/culture. BTW, the point here is that the American-Americans, AKA white folk, were the ones that internerned Japanese-Americans, so maybe that's a little motivation. Before you jump to conclusions, I am against the current administration of Affirmative Action, unlike this very conservative US Sup Ct that just last year or two has not only rubber stamped it, but also wrote that it will be here for another 25 years. Of course they can always overrule that with another decision, but that was their way of expressing how they love the current system. A question I have for you is: Why does it bother you?

And you were wrong. He was a comander that punished a man within the legal limits. So this guy ran during a firefight. I would have shot him on the spot. Then move. It was legal according to the law. And you were wrong. And so was the other guy, but no one's here to point that out, which relegates the whole thing to nonsense. He was a comander that punished a man within the legal limits. And a governor, and the entire process, that kills kids for 1st degree murder is a person/process that is acting within the law (in like 37 states), so it is the system that we have a problem with. So this guy ran during a firefight. I would have shot him on the spot. You're a real human. Since you likely belive Jebus, do you think he would approve? Then move. It was legal according to the law. I would love to be able to. But I will still be here to annoy you Legal, so what, how about ethical/moral? It's legal to burn a flag, but I bet you get your panties in a bunch when you think of someone doing it, so quit your, "legal" rambling.

So you must share an unexpected (for you) kinship with him then. Blues, Ian No, Tuna doesn't make any cogent assertions, just rides the coattails of his neo-con mentors. Funny, all the in-depth writings I've posted in several threads, none of it touched by the small neo-con mind, yet when an event occurs 60 years ago and I recollect "about 100 years" and another guy recollects about 50 years and this somehow becomes an issue. All this does is to reinforce my assertions about small, tiny, infinitesimal neo-con mind. Thank you.

The problem encountered is what else have you been wrong about? Makes all of your posts in the future shaky at best and needs to be held with a grain of salt. Oh brother, good luck. I thought it was about 100 years ago that the US murdered a person for not being willing to kill after being drafted, and it was 60. What does that prove? As opposed to attempting to dissect my assertions that cap pun has strong elements of Utilitarianism, Hedonism, and Communism, you defer to 100 years vs 60 years. It is you, my friend, that appears to be desperate to search for an argument. Truth is, I do want you to comb my writings to find fault in fact or error - pleae do. I won't stay online waiting tho. It's very similiar to saying Kerry will win the election guaranteed I don't believe I ever wrote that. Furthermore, to assert that an offhand recollection of when this wonderful murderous country killed one of its own at the order of a future US Republican President, versus a prognostication isn't even as close as apples/oranges. There is so much that I have written, please go back and comb it for factuality, or concede to being useless. "You were wrong. Period. No use in trying to explain it." And so was your neo-con lover.

About 100 using rough numbers. Your neo-con twin wrote that the last person to be executed for dessertion was 50 years, when in reality it was 60.... so he was further off by percentage than was I. I'm not here to split hairs and avoid the facts, so I'm not calling it out as an issue. He was right as far as the last time this wonderful country killed one of its own (like it's so uncommon). Shall we talk Japanese-American internement, or just keep the math lesson going?

Whether you agree with him being charged with desertion or not, Pvt. Eddie Slovik was executed by firing squad during WWII. Pvt. Eddie Slovik Ok, you're right. I thought it was during WWI. "Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered that Slovik's execution be carried out to avoid further desertions in the late stages of the war." Hmmm, he's a murderer, let's make him president. The more things change, the more things stay the same. "Slovik was court-martialed for desertion under fire and sentenced to death by firing squad. His execution was carried out in the closing months of World War II, his wife totally unaware of the sentence. The army denied responsiblity, claiming that Slovik himself should have notified her." Pardon me, I'm welling up - I just love America...

"My my my - another nerve tweaked." I'm sorry, did I tweak your nerve? "FYI - I don't give a rat's ass what you think of any Constitutional issues I might bring up in the forums or elsewhere. If it troubles you in any manner, that's your problem with which to deal." It's not the issues; it's the reasoning. Even your heroes, Rhenquist, Scalia, Thomas and the sort would bow their head when reading your logic. I don't expect deep, philosophical logic when I talk/write to neo-cons, but I always give them the chance. See, the country's legal system was founded on some sort of organized reasoning, and the "rat's ass" variety of reasoning is unfortunately best left on posting boards. But I enjoy reading the rants of the uneducated; it entertains me! "I am quite conservative ..." You don't say... "... and with the exception of billvon, riddler, rehmwa, and kallend doubt many here could match my knowledge of mathematics - your toes & 20 argument gives me quite a chuckle." Ok, I'll concede the math knowledge/ability and you concede the legal/Constitutional knowledge. Of course you won't. "Believe that all conservatives are stupid if it makes you feel better. " Well, it doesn't; it's a sad reality in most cases. "Laughter is good for me." But hard to do in the straightjacket. "Then again whenever I hear that 'neo-con' sobriquet I always chuckle, so your post just makes me feel good all around." Good, that's why I'm here. "This utilitarianism rant upon which you have embarked is simply hilarious. Think that if it makes you feel better - and please keep posting such things. Laughter is good for the soul." This is where you acquiesce. If you had any substantive retort or anything of the cogent nature to assert, you would have. You obviously don't understand Utilitarian logic or the ramifications when you run a government under that system. You just want people dead because that is also good for your soul.

I realize it's fun parody, but the overtone that liberals are weak is something that helps to make me believe most neo-cons are more like the intellect of Bush than are not.