davjohns

Dude. I swear I have never done so. I just can't get others to stop. It is THAT simple. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

The argument "Capital punishment is murder" is not necessarily an emotional argument, and is in fact defensible without playing word games. I'm undecided, btw, if I consider the American variant to be murder, and if it is, it's a very understandable type of murder. Btw, I'm emotionally often in favour of capital punishment, but ethically/rationally against it. Are we? I thought we're discussing the death penalty, which includes for example the state sanctioned murder excuse me, killing of rape-victims excuse me, promiscuous sluts in Iran and witches in Saudi Arabia. I provided the first definition that came up when I looked it up on google. I didn't cherry pick. Based on that definition, you cannot confuse murder and the death penalty. I'll accept your point on the state execution of people not convicted of heinous crimes (although I personally place rape under that heading). I had in mind that we would confine the discussion to the example I presented. It was in the US. It was rape, torture, murder, burglary, assault and a host of other things in one continuous crime. My point, as presented, was that (in my mind) this case was a clear time to use the death penalty. If it is, then there are cases where the death penalty is justified. I hardly made a case that it is always justified as you have just introduced. So, in the case of these two animals...having confessed and testified that they planned and conducted a burglary, double rape, beating, torture and murder...having taken pictures on their cell phones of the rape of a young girl...having argued in court that it wasn't their fault because the husband didn't protect his family well enough...you argue that the death penalty is not justified because other countries use the death penalty for lesser crimes. I'm not buying it. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

From this I gather that you are arguing for three major points: 1. Unconditional guilt Can you guarantee that all death penalty decisions will be based on unconditional guilt? Nope. Currently we cannot. 2. Cost of maintenance Sorry to hear that morality is being sacrificed for monetary concerns. IMO, morality doesn't come with a price factor. 3. Possible release Yep. Currently that's true. Blame that on the legal system. That CAN be fixed. Pointless to use examples like Manson. AFAIK, correct me if I'm wrong, his current sentence does not include 'no possibility of parole' so yes, he could be released at any of his parole hearings. None of those pro-death penalty arguments override the arguments against state-sponsored killing. OK. I'm going to guess that your previous word game was intentional. 1. I never said anything about unconditional guilt. That was your re-wording. I said there are cases like the ones cited where guilt is unquestioned. Please explain to me how you have some reasonable argument how these guys texted, took pictures of the rape on their cell phones, confessed, got caught on camera getting gas, etc. and yet managed to be innocent of this crime. 2. I mentioned the cost of maintenance as a passing thought. I am much more concerned with what happens to future victims when these guys get out. You admit that is a possibility. I have searched for some indication of how probable it is without success. But we know it happens. 3. I agree this is a problem with the legal system. I am not convinced it can be fixed. However, I asked for a reasonable solution TODAY for the instant case. From your conclusion, I am thinking you are ok with the potential for these two animals to be released in the world and commit more attrocities. You find that preferable to execution. Since it is your guilt we are trying to assuage, can we send them to your house if they are released? I would accept your argument a little better if I could have some guarantee that when/if they are released, you will bear the consequences of your choices rather than me and mine. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Yup. Lots of nameless, largely unemployed, emotional people get together. Crime rises. The conclusion is that the police brought criminals in to discredit the 'movement'. And he thinks that's perfectly logical. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

If I go to my local prison and euthanize a convicted murderer without his consent it counts as pre-meditated murder. Good point! Well, still there is that pesky word 'legal' involved. We can freely commit pre-meditated murder if it is legal. Asinine, if you ask me. Intentional or not, this is a word game and not fair debate. Murder is not something committed by the state. You are using the term (possibly unintentionally) to return to the emotional argument. Everyone consents that murder is wrong. We are not discussing murder. We are discussing execution due to an individual's conviction for heinous crimes against others. mur·der (mûrdr) n. 1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. 2. Slang Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder. 3. A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock1. v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders v.tr. 1. To kill (another human) unlawfully. 2. To kill brutally or inhumanly. 3. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances. 4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language. 5. Slang To defeat decisively; trounce. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Doing another search now for evidence of disenfranchised voters. Find the Georgia results, but I'll ignore them since they don't support you. I found an article that claimed an older woman was disenfranchised...turns out she just left her ID at home. I'm not sure I can count that. Lots of articles that predict gloom and doom and disparage voter ID laws with no rational basis. Just lots of emotion. One decries the disenfranchisement of transgenders and cites a poll that shows many of them don't get their ID changed. It doesn't say why they don't bother to get their ID changed. Again, hard to hold the system accountable for the failure of the individual. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Time to outlaw icepicks. And, of course, we will not give the murderer/rapist/degenerate the death penalty. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Yes you did, and it does not show a problem worthy of consideration. 50 people ? wow...... certainly a marked percentage of AT LEAST 0.00003% And again, that was a quick google search. That's people who were convicted DESPITE the difficulty of detecting voter fraud when no ID is required. That's people who are committing voter fraud multiple times (10 that were PROVEN in one case). So, we can not logically say how bad the problem is. Your math was a cute attempt to make yours seem a rational argument, but you can not rationalize unknown numbers. And again, please provide evidence of the numbers disenfranchised. Georgia seems to have brought more minorities to the polls by requiring ID. That seems a problem for your argument. Please address it. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Please fight fair, Wendy. I've come to expect that of you. Don't let me down now. I looked it up and reported earlier...the ID is free. There is not a money issue. It can be done by mail, so transportation is not an issue. I might give you a little something on the issue of a birth certificate, but I haven't verified that it is the only way to get the ID. Time? Really? Your arguments are usually better than to claim people will be disenfranchised because they don't have time to get the required ID. If they are working, they had to have ID to fill out the I9. If they are not working, they have time. And then you start throwing out numbers designed to support your argument? I know you don't have a basis for those numbers. You know I love you. Fight fair now. :) I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

We know voter fraud is happening. We can certainly deduce that requiring ID would either eliminate or help identify it. At the moment, it is not possible to quantify it. Yet, I notice people are quantifying voter fraud as small numbers and disenfranchisement as large numbers (as you did here). May I have a cite of people who have actually been disenfranchised, please? I provided a cite to statistics showing that requiring ID in Georgia lead to INCREASED minority participation in elections. I would appreciate the courtesy of someone providing some quantifiable evidence that voter ID will disenfanchise the claimed tens of thousands. Thanks. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

once, twice, twelve times? I put out a threshold I believe to be meaningful, based on the simple error rate of the voting machines. It remains clear that this is a much more serious problem then rare voter fraud issues. I provided links. One woman in LA was convicted of at least ten fraudulent votes. Another state had convicted over 50 people. Please show me evidence of those who have been disenfranchised, please. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Potential is not the same thing as actually happening. As mentioned, thousands are dying due to speeding. That is a real result. As I wrote repeatedly, we best use our limited resources on actual problems, not imagined ones. Are you saying there is no voter fraud? Matt pretty much. we got people here posting editorial columns about single convictions here or there. Talk about potential ways it could be done. But still not seeing anything that doesn't smack of political motivations (read: racism or transparent targeting of those who don't vote GOP). It's a solution in search of a problem. It's not hard to figure out - you've undoubtably read the earlier posts of mine. I haven't seen replies actually address the real picture either...not much better than wailing about the poor children. I guess you ignored my posts of stories involving dozens of convictions AND my invitation to do your own search? I guess the 400,000 fraudulent registrations by ACORN is 'single convictions here and there'? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Potential is not the same thing as actually happening. As mentioned, thousands are dying due to speeding. That is a real result. As I wrote repeatedly, we best use our limited resources on actual problems, not imagined ones. You are arguing a self-fulfilling line. If we do not require ID, it is ridiculously hard to prove voter fraud (the case I linked to included DNA testing of envelopes licked by the culprit). We do not require ID, we therefore can not say conclusively how prevalent it is or what the impact is. So, you conclude there is no impact. If it is 'silly argument day', I'll give you this...nobody has ever been injured by speeding. It's the sudden impact that should be outlawed. That's what gets them. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

If they ban liquor, crime will rise again with bootlegging. Rahm is a blithering idiot. I heard this morning on a radio show from the previous police captain that it was the mayors elimination of the gang crimes units that is causing the increase. 9 months ago, in order to put more cops on the beats Rahm moved special units for combatting these issues to regular beats. this was done in 2008 and the same thing happened so they went back to these special units and the shootings and killings dropped to almost 400 last year, now it is on the rise again without these special units. to bad Rahm didn't look into the history of his own police force before making changes that have been made before with the same results. You lie! It's the liquor stores, the heat and the lack of police presence on facebook! Read the article! I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Who? There was a teacher in my highschool named Marbury. I never knew he got into a dispute with Dolly Madison. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I think we can agree to disagree. One would think. And then there's SC.... :) I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Oh, OK. So if I build a jail in my house and keep someone in it against his will, I shouldn't go to prison for that. Because it would be hypocritical of the government to put me in prison for imprisoning someone else. If you build a jail in your house and keep someone in it against his will, that is called kidnapping. Placing a convicted criminal behind bars is not kidnapping. If someone pleads guilty to assault that does not give .gov the right to beat him up. If someone is guilty of raping someone, it does not give the government the right to rape him. We are better than that, right? Now when it comes to killing, the worst of all crimes, its suddenly okay for us to sink to their level. We've been down this emotional road in this thread. Please read what has come before and take it into consideration. Execution is not necessarily about revenge, justice or other concepts. Those are part of it, but hardly all. My proposition is that there are instances such as those already cited, where we have to accept that the safest thing for society is to remove the cancer. It should be done with great consideration, deliberation and introspection. However, there are fact patterns that just don't leave much choice. I have asked that those who oppose the death penalty provide alternatives. Wendy (and I think one other) have proposed that LWOP is acceptable even given it's possibilities that those so sentenced may walk free and commit heinous acts again. In their judgment, the cost/benefit works out. I am willing to accept their opinion without agreeing to it. I have sought facts on LWOP outcomes. I think the risks are more substantial than I am willing to take just to keep an animal alive. This does not apply in all cases. But a couple have been cited in this thread that are hard to argue against. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Considering the 2000 election was decided by 100-400 votes depending on the criteria used.... I'd disagree that there is no impact. Bush won by those few hundred votes. Are you saying that he won by fraud? Somehow I don't think this was your intent. Evidence that a few random people cheated is not evidence of impact. Impact would be a stolen election. Or at the very least, fraudulent vote counts that come close to the known error of mechanical machines - at least 1%. I think you are intentionally missing the point. He pointed out an instance where a small number of votes turned an election. To say that a small number of fraudulent votes is 'no impact' is therefore illogical. I thought it was pretty clear. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I just find it interesting that he is declaring his technique successful while they have the worst results in history. The story made no connection between liquor stores and gang violence. He just declared that closing liquor stores was curbing gang violence. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

You can't see the difference between the two of those? (as he revives another week old thread...let old dogs die, ffs.) Sure ... one kills thousands of Americans each year and the other....has no observed impact at all. Come on. Fight fair. There have been examples herein. You can't just pretend that voter fraud isn't real when the evidence has been presented to you. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I don't have a comment. Just wanted to see this re-posted. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

That is one strange article. Chicago residents are killing each other in record numbers. The police are surfing facebook in response. Global warming is blamed. So, we're going to shut down the liquor stores. Did I miss any key points? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Your problem, it appears from your post, is you assume I get my opinion watching movies instead of history books talking about events such as the Bay of Pigs. Generals have, in fact, proven themselves to be somewhat untrustworthy sometimes when it comes to what they consider to be a diplomatic solution. Yeah. Washington was untrustworty. I think the last one was that Eisenhower jerk. There were other 'untrustworthy' types in there as well. A lifetime of service, leadership, higher education and caring for others are things we should always try to avoid. For the record, Soldiers aren't the ones who jump to warfare in place of diplomacy. The politicians who get to stay behind and send us forward are the ones who do that. We generally deplore war. We are the ones who get killed and blamed for it by people like you. Yeah. I took offense at this post. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Let's start with a shave and haircut and go from there. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Poor idiot was out of his league. And that conspiracy theory thing? Wow. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.