DebateGate

General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on July 22, 2008, 02:34:01 AM

Title: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Michael Tee on July 22, 2008, 02:34:01 AM: from Counterpunch today - -

http://www.counterpunch.com/whitney07212008.html (http://www.counterpunch.com/whitney07212008.html)

Obama promising to move the war from Iraq to Afghanistan.

Here you supposedly see the real "choices" being offered via the electoral process to the American people: War in Afghanistan or War in Iraq. Pick one.

Is anyone going to argue that the system is not seriously broken? This is the ultimate consequence of money in politics. The richest party, the War Party, buys both sides in the election. The opponents of the War Party have nowhere to go.

I've always voted before, but if this were my only choice, I wouldn't vote. It's a farce. Anyone who votes in this election is not only a sucker, but he or she is assisting and enabling those behind the farce.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: BT on July 22, 2008, 02:38:00 AM: Unfortunately the peace party boxed themselves in by backing the Good War in Afghanistan and presumably Pakistan.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Michael Tee on July 22, 2008, 12:41:27 PM: <<Unfortunately the peace party boxed themselves in by backing the Good War in Afghanistan and presumably Pakistan. >>

Sure they did, but you should look behind that. WHY did they box themselves in?

To the extent that the Democratic Party harbours any left-of-centre political opinion to the right of Dennis Kucinich, it's either already sold out to the War Party on foreign policy or - - and this is the exact same phenomenon that David Halberstam noted in The Best and the Brightest, his account of the origins of the Vietnam War - - it's been terrified of appearing "soft" on the enemy of the day - - "soft on communism" then, soft on "terrorism" now.

The Republican Party has consistently been able to outflank the Democrats on the right by appealing to two basic American emotions - - fear and rage. Anyone who glorifies in violent destruction of other human beings, who worships the military and all the violence, high-tech and low-tech, that it's able to inflict on others, and anyone who shivers in their boots thinking of sinister, dark-skinned people filled with evil, has a home in the Republican Party. (As well as the relatively sane and normal, if empathy-impaired, fiscal conservatives and others, of course)

The Democrats, of course, allow the Republicans to get away with this shit because they are lazy or cowardly. Too lazy to make the case against war and militarism, too cowardly to fight the Republicans and their macho trademarks, they fall into a "me-too" trap even though it costs them election after election. Their problem is salesmanship - - they just can't figure out the delivery vehicle for their messages. It's true, their message seems more nuanced and complex than the Republican message (It's us or them, you're either for us or against us) but isn't that what LEADERSHIP is all about? If they can't lead the people in the right direction, they don't deserve to govern. I never saw inspirational leadership in the Democratic Party since Bobby died. It's too bad.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: BT on July 22, 2008, 12:46:40 PM: Quote
The Democrats, of course, allow the Republicans to get away with this shit because they are lazy or cowardly.

The Democrats have no choice. The american people are a violent group. And they don't like to be talked down to, they have been trained to dislike the rich and elite.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Michael Tee on July 22, 2008, 01:10:56 PM: <<The Democrats have no choice. The american people are a violent group.>>

That's where LEADERSHIP comes in. They'd better find a way to get the American people to smarten up.

<< And they don't like to be talked down to . . . >>

Yeah, they're stupid too. I noticed.

<< they have been trained to dislike the rich and elite.>>

That's good. It means they'll vote Obama in a landslide. McCain's the son and grandson of admirals, he's got eight homes compared to Obama's one, and his wife's money puts him WAAAAAY out of Obama's league. He's descended from slave-owners (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._McCain,_Sr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._McCain,_Sr). for an account of the family background of the grandfather) and Obama is an African-American married to a descendant of slaves.

But this is very funny - - McCain is running against an "elitist." This is hilarious.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: BT on July 22, 2008, 01:42:59 PM: Once again you twist my words. We were talking about the dem party not Obama and we were talking about the GOP's appeal to the angry ones. Not McCain. I could care less about McCain's money, but you prove my point about $ envy. And McCain's forebears my have owned slave, but did they import them like Kerry's did (a man who also married well, twice if i recall)
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Cynthia on July 22, 2008, 02:29:33 PM: Money can't always solve the problems that we face in life-even at the highest level. There has to be intelligence, compassion and common sense to go along with that wad of cash .

Bush had his share of money, prestige and a family name, but did he have the the 'other'?
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Michael Tee on July 22, 2008, 03:09:34 PM: <<Once again you twist my words. We were talking about the dem party not Obama and we were talking about the GOP's appeal to the angry ones.>>

Here's what YOU were talking about: <<The Democrats have no choice. The american people are a violent group. >>

You were talking about the Democratic Party AND about the American people.

And then you spoke again about the American people: <<And they don't like to be talked down to, they have been trained to dislike the rich and elite.>> That your reference was to the American people here was clear from the fact that the sentence followed immediately after a sentence that referred exclusively to the American people; here it is, again, in context: <<The american people are a violent group. And they don't like to be talked down to, they have been trained to dislike the rich and elite.>>

To recap, you spoke of the Democratic Party and you spoke of the American people. Not once in the post that I responded to did you speak about the GOP appeal to the American people or anyone else. So how exactly did I "twist your words?" I merely concluded from what you said about American hatred of the rich and the elite that this would be good news for Obama. Am I not allowed to extrapolate from things you say and apply them to related current subjects?
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: BT on July 22, 2008, 04:06:06 PM: Quote
The Democrats, of course, allow the Republicans to get away with this shit because they are lazy or cowardly.

That was my entry into the thread. Not the word Republicans?
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: BT on July 22, 2008, 04:08:12 PM: Quote
There has to be intelligence, compassion and common sense to go along with that wad of cash .

Bush had his share of money, prestige and a family name, but did he have the the 'other'?

Are you saying Bush does not have compassion, intelligence or common sense?

Because i can provide evidence that he does.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on July 22, 2008, 05:41:20 PM: Are you saying Bush does not have compassion, intelligence or common sense?
Because i can provide evidence that he does.

Go, on.

I double-dog dare you.

==============
But the important thing is that he is an incompetent, shallow, lying, stubborn warmongering asshole.

And easily the very worst president ever, unless you count Jefferson Davis.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Plane on July 22, 2008, 07:14:22 PM: Quote from: BT on July 22, 2008, 12:46:40 PM
Quote
The Democrats, of course, allow the Republicans to get away with this shit because they are lazy or cowardly.

The Democrats have no choice. The American people are a violent group. And they don't like to be talked down to, they have been trained to dislike the rich and elite.

How far is that from being class conscious?
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Michael Tee on July 22, 2008, 07:33:04 PM: BT sez:

Quote
The Democrats, of course, allow the Republicans to get away with this shit because they are lazy or cowardly.

That was my entry into the thread. Not the word Republicans?
==========================================================================

Sorry, BT, one of us is very confused. The words you just quoted were MY post and MY words, they were not your "entry into the thread." Maybe you meant it was the point at which you entered the thread?

But if that's what you meant, I still have to ask, how did I twist your words? Which particular words of yours do you say I "twisted" and how exactly were they twisted?
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: BT on July 22, 2008, 07:40:51 PM: It must be you who is confused.

Note it wasn't i who call dems stupid it was you who called GOPsters stupid. Talking down to them if you will.

Although you did claim the dems were ineffective, amd i have no quattel with that statement.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Michael Tee on July 22, 2008, 07:46:20 PM: <<It must be you who is confused.>>

I don't think so, but you still haven't answered my question: which words of yours did I "twist" and how exactly did I "twist" them?
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: BT on July 22, 2008, 08:12:56 PM: Quote
I don't think so, but you still haven't answered my question: which words of yours did I "twist" and how exactly did I "twist" them?

Talking about parties does not equate to talking about candidates.

I never claimed Obama talked down to constituents, though Jesse Jackson might tyake issue with that.

I never claimed Obama was an elite.

Though some of his supporters think that, for example, if you are not a member of the teachers unionm you have no standing to discuss education issues. or if you have never served in the armed services your opinion concerning nation security issues is suspect.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Cynthia on July 22, 2008, 09:21:05 PM: Quote from: BT on July 22, 2008, 04:08:12 PM
Quote
There has to be intelligence, compassion and common sense to go along with that wad of cash .

Bush had his share of money, prestige and a family name, but did he have the the 'other'?

Are you saying Bush does not have compassion, intelligence or common sense?

Because i can provide evidence that he does.

I'll never forget reading about Bush's "decision" to give a "go ahead" to execute a death row prisoner in a Texas jail. This woman had a chance to live if Bush would have given the ok...( I have forgotten her name) She was a born again Christian and had proven that she was capable of helping others, having completely repented; proven far and above many prisoners in her situation that she was worthy to live...That was my first shocking assessment of Bush's lack of compassion. His call to go into Iraq shows his lack of intelligence, imo, of course. (and compassion)

You might show that he is a brilliant scholar, or that he has an IQ worthy of a leader, but no amount of "proof" you find, BT, will show that he walks that test talk.

I believe that Obama is both intelligent in such matters and compassionate.

Obama voted against the Iraq war.
Smart and Compassionate.

Obama listens to teachers
Compassionate and Smart.

to name a few.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: BT on July 22, 2008, 09:37:15 PM: Quote
I'll never forget reading about Bush's "decision" to give a "go ahead" to execute a death row prisoner in a Texas jail.

That wasn't Bush's decision to make. Repeating stories without the facts to back them is neither smart nor compassionate. But it is not unexpected.

Quote
Obama listens to teachers
Compassionate and Smart.

One persons smart and compassionate is another persons pandering.

BTW what is so smart about claiming a program is unfunded when it clearly is?
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Michael Tee on July 22, 2008, 10:25:49 PM: The woman was Karla Faye Tucker, and the decision (to grant or withhold clemency) was certainly Bush's to make, as Governor of the State of Texas. Bush wasn't so much condemned for his decision (the murders were committed with great brutality) as for his mocking of the condemned woman's pleas to him for her life.

<<In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, a number of protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Karla Faye Tucker. "Did you meet with any of them?" I ask. Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I didn't meet with any of them," he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. "I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with Tucker, though. He asked her real difficult questions like, "What would you say to Governor Bush?" "What was her answer?" I wonder. "Please," Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "don't kill me." I must look shocked — ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel — because he immediately stops smirking.>>

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/women/tucker/1.html (http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/women/tucker/1.html)

I have to say that Karla Faye Tucker definitely deserved the death penalty, in fact it's too bad the bitch couldn't have been killed the same way she killed her victim, 46 hits with a pick-axe wielded by members of the family, but Bush apparently lost a lot of points for mimicking her plea for mercy. Especially among evangelicals, because Karla apparently "found Jesus" while awaiting her execution.

This is just to clear up the record. I have a lot of reasons to despise George W. Bush, but personally I have to agree with Bush's decision here. When I read the details of the crime just now, I'm not even horrified that Bush mocked the plea for mercy. Karla claimed she got a triple orgasm from the killing. If she was lucky, maybe she got one last good one from the lethal injection.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Michael Tee on July 22, 2008, 10:51:17 PM: In answer to my question, "Which words of yours did I "twist" and how exactly did I "twist" them?" BT writes the following:

<<Talking about parties does not equate to talking about candidates.>>

First of all, you were talking about the American people not liking to be talked down to, AND the American people being "trained" to dislike the "rich and elite."

I did not twist those words of yours; on the contrary, I took them at face value and applied them to Obama's chances in the election.

<<I never claimed Obama talked down to constituents, though Jesse Jackson might tyake issue with that.>>

Leaving Jesse Jackson aside simply because he has nothing to do with the point of this discussion, how exactly did I "twist" your words to imply that you had accused Obama of talking down? Where exactly did I do that?

<<I never claimed Obama was an elite.>>

No, what you said exactly was: << they [the American people] have been trained to dislike the rich and elite.>> Well, this wasn't a totally random remark, like "the American people have been trained to dislike anal sex" or "the American people have been trained to dislike the wearing of socks with sandals." Your remark was made in the context of an election, an election in which Obama has been accused many times of being an "elitist<' and unless your remarks were plainly made with no relevant intention, along the lines of the sample "anal sex" or "socks & sandals" then they must have been made with reference to the election which is the subject of this thread. I read your line "trained to dislike the rich and elite" as if you were referring to Obama, and not voicing abstract likes and dislikes of the American people totally unrelated to the election. Please correct me if I am wrong.

<<Though some of his supporters think that, for example, if you are not a member of the teachers unionm you have no standing to discuss education issues . . . >>

Looked more to me like a simple and probably true statement that teachers would know a lot more about the workings of the educational system than people who did not work in education.

<< . . . or if you have never served in the armed services your opinion concerning nation security issues is suspect.>>

Oh, I've heard that before. The old "trust the military" argument. Usually advanced, at least here in this NG, not by the supporters of Obama but by the militarists and war-mongers. The crypto-Nazis.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: BT on July 22, 2008, 10:57:16 PM: Quote
was certainly Bush's to make, as Governor of the State of Texas.

The Governor of Texas has little to no pardon powers as it belongs to a board . It was removed from gubernatorial powers in Texas because of abuse in the 40's with a pardons for cash scandal.

Your assumption is ill founded.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Amianthus on July 22, 2008, 11:01:49 PM: Quote from: Michael Tee on July 22, 2008, 10:25:49 PM
The woman was Karla Faye Tucker, and the decision (to grant or withhold clemency) was certainly Bush's to make, as Governor of the State of Texas.

The power to grant clemency was taken away from the governor of Texas before Bush came into office. That power rests in a "Board of Pardons and Paroles."

You've been told this already, several times.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Michael Tee on July 22, 2008, 11:06:04 PM: Bush refused a 30-day stay of execution, which he DID have the power to grant. And it was in connection with his refusal of the stay that the mockery occurred.

The point here isn't Bush's power to grant or withhold clemency, it's primarily his lack of empathy, as evidenced by his mocking of the pleas of a condemned woman. The 30-day stay in a life-or-death situation was her last hope - - it gave an extra window of opportunity to her legal team to try to figure out another way to block the execution. This Bush DID have the power to grant, and his refusal effectively sealed the woman's fate for good. The rest is pure nit-picking about what powers a Texas governor has or does not have.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: BT on July 22, 2008, 11:11:12 PM: Cindy's point was he did not intervene in a born again christians death sentence. The best he could do was issue a 30 day reprieve. Lot of good that would do.

http://texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu/html/exec/0700.html (http://texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu/html/exec/0700.html)
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Michael Tee on July 22, 2008, 11:19:16 PM: <<The best he could do was issue a 30 day reprieve. Lot of good that would do. >>

LOL. Yeah. Like YOU wouldn't bust your ass to get one if it was you sitting there on Death Row. Like no one in recorded history ever got a fresh appeal or a new trial during a 30-day extension
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: BT on July 22, 2008, 11:32:54 PM: A Series of Appeals Rejected

Karla Faye Tucker's appeal to halt her execution was rejected by the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals on January 28, 1998, less than a week before her scheduled execution. Tucker's lawyers had argued Texas's procedure for commuting death sentences, claiming that the law provides no guidelines for parole board members in considering clemency for death row inmates. The following week, on February 2, 1998 (the eve of Tucker's scheduled execution), the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, which could have recommend a pardon for Tucker to Gov. George Bush, rejected her request to have her death sentence changed to life in prison.

On February 3, Tucker's last chance to avoid the death penalty lied with the U.S. Supreme Court, which considered her petition for a stay of the execution. But the Supreme Court denied the request, clearing the way for Tucker's execution later that day.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Amianthus on July 22, 2008, 11:33:06 PM: Quote from: Michael Tee on July 22, 2008, 11:19:16 PM
LOL. Yeah. Like YOU wouldn't bust your ass to get one if it was you sitting there on Death Row. Like no one in recorded history ever got a fresh appeal or a new trial during a 30-day extension

Her request for clemency was already turned down by the board. Her appeals had been exhausted. All the 30 day extension would have done was set a new day for her execution.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Michael Tee on July 23, 2008, 08:40:50 AM: My point is that in 30 days anything can happen if the person is still alive and nothing can happen if the person has already been executed. New evidence can surface of prosecutorial abuse, or abuse of authority by the Board of Paroles and Pardons. New arguments can be found to persuade the Texas Board or a judge. New people can be brought on board to lobby for her, turn around some key Board members, call for a re-hearing.

Remote chances, admittedly, but the last chance for the condemned. Long shots pay off at the track, who can say they never do in the judicial system? Who in their right mind wouldn't leap at it? Don't tell me that BT or Ami or anyone else if in Karla Faye's position wouldn't have fought like hell for those 30 days. It was the only chance she had.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on July 23, 2008, 09:27:30 AM: The accusation that Juniorbush was a callous asshole stems from his mocking Karla Faye's voice on the air.

This woman was not a threat to anyone especially because they could have commuted her sentence to a life without parole.

Does anyone actually believe that executing her has caused any prospective murderers to refrain from murder?
=======
The death sentence is not a valid deterrent as it it carried out in the US. Perhaps if we did it the way the Saudis do, that would be a useful deterrent: whack their heads off on TV within weeks of the crime.

But that is just if we want people to think we are a barbaric as the Saudis.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: BT on July 23, 2008, 09:37:15 AM: The charge was that GW Bush could have commuted her sentence. Her appeals had been exhausted all the way to the supreme court. And under the Texas constitution he did not have the power to commute.

The charge was blatantly false.

Debating the efficacy of a death sentence is one thing. Falsely representing facts is another.

We are dealing with the latter, once again.

What is even stranger is that folks like Chuck Colson who find Jesus behind bars is still vilified, yet cold blooded murderers like Karla Faye Tucker who are conveniently born again are nominated for sainthood.

Go figure.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on July 23, 2008, 09:46:17 AM: What is even stranger is that folks like Chuck Colson who find Jesus behind bars is still vilified, yet cold blooded murderers like Karla Faye Tucker who are conveniently born again are nominated for sainthood.

========================================
No one is saying this woman is or ever was a saint. She was a despicable murderer, and now the State of Texas has proven that it can also be a despicable murderer, too. I hereby issue a post-mortum relivement against her.

My point was that Juniorbush was an asshole to publicly make fun of her plea for a commutation of her sentence.
-------------
It has been eons since I have heard anything about Colson. I think he has done a lot of good since he got out of the slammer.

-----------------
It is my view that governors and presidents should be held to a higher standard than murderers and even presidential ex-aides.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: BT on July 23, 2008, 09:51:12 AM: Quote
It is my view that governors and presidents should be held to a higher standard than murderers and even presidential ex-aides.

If a standard is worth holding it should apply to everyone.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on July 23, 2008, 10:00:36 AM: If a standard is worth holding it should apply to everyone.

=================================================
Do you really believe that we should expect the same behavior of a murderer as of a governor?

It's not like we elect murderers, or vote against them if we do not like their actions.

Karla was a murderer. She deserved to be punished, and was punished.

Juniorbush was an insensitive asshole, and somehow was elected, anyway, with many continuing to believe that he is not an insensitive asshole.

These are different actions, and therefore different standards apply.

It is not nice to pick a booger and flick it at another person, but it is not the moral equivalent of axe-murder, for example.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: BT on July 23, 2008, 10:14:57 AM: Quote
It is not nice to pick a booger and flick it at another person,

Is that universal or should it only apply to public officials, you know, the ones we hold to a higher standard.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on July 23, 2008, 10:35:41 AM: Would you vote for a known murderer?

Would you vote for a known booger-flicker?

Suppose we saw a video of a candidate committing an axe-murder. How many votes might he get?

Then suppose we saw a video of the same candidate, instead of committing an axe-murder, flicking a booger? How many votes would that get?

I am pretty sure that either faux pas would result in a loss by the said candidate. People would be able to joke about the boogers a lot more easily, and it would be more likely that the media would broadcast the booger-flicking.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Michael Tee on July 23, 2008, 11:17:00 AM: <<The accusation that Juniorbush was a callous asshole stems from his mocking Karla Faye's voice on the air.>>

Right.

<<This woman was not a threat to anyone especially because they could have commuted her sentence to a life without parole.>>

Wrong. Who's to say she can't, sometime in that life sentence, figure out a way to off a nurse, a guard or a prisoner who rankled her ass one way or another? Once they've taken an innocent life - - and particularly as brutally as Karla took her victim's - - who's to say when or if they'll do it again, and what's the point of housing, feeding and clothing them for another 60 or 70 years just to find out? What could anyone do to her, increase her sentence by another 100 years?

If you live in the real world, you've got to face the fact that some people are just plain bad. Anyone who can take a pick-axe and bury it 46 times in the face and body of a defenceless woman is more than just a little misguided. I'd say after the 5th or 6th strike, she'd lost any right she had to continue co-existing with the rest of us on this planet. Those people are just a fucking menace - - sure, society probably failed them about six ways to Sunday during their formative years, but society failed a lot of people and they didn't turn out to be axe murderers. At some point in her life, she became damaged goods - - the evidence is the body of her victim. We have to be able to weed these people out. There's no point in risking further damage or injury to prison personnel just to accommodate them.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on July 23, 2008, 11:53:21 AM: Somehow, nearly all of the countries in Europe do not seem to have a problem with abolishing the death penalty. Could it be that they are different from us? Could it be that most of the genetic traces of psychopathology was wiped out in the many wars up to and including WWII?

I agree that there are people we should not allow to mingle with the rest of us. I just do not think that the death penalty,as carried out in the US, is a valid deterrent to murder.

Many states do not have a death penalty. I don't think they have one in Canada anymore, do they? Mexico abolished it the Constitution of 1917 (but there is always the ley de fuga, by which guards are allowed to shoot escapees). As a rule, the states that lack a death penalty seem to have fewer murders per capita than those that do not. It does seem that the South is rather a lot more violent than the North.

For me, the main problem with the death penalty is the possibility that an innocent person be executed. Of course, it is also barbarous.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Michael Tee on July 23, 2008, 01:40:14 PM: Canada doesn't have a death penalty, hasn't had one since the 1950s, IIRC.

I think the U.S. is a very violent society, for a number of reasons, a Rambo/militaristic culture being one of them, the legacies of slavery and racism being another. Also the grossly unequal distribution of wealth. There's a "perfect storm" of social pathology that's been a long time brewing. These are problems that more civilized societies like we and the Europeans just do not have. Or at least, don't have to the same extent that you do.

Europeans and Canadians don't have capital punishment but then again we don't have the problems of prison violence that you do. I think ALL violent criminals should be executed - - whether their victims live or die is an irrelevancy because if they live this time they might just as well die next time. These are just people you do NOT want to coexist with and to keep their miserable lives sputtering along in captivity for another fifty or sixty years just to keep them away from you and yours is just not worth the effort or the expense. A bullet in the back of their head is just as effective and exponentially cheaper in solving the problem. Besides which, it is fool-proof. Many of these violent criminals, during a life behind bars, will still figure out ways to kill or maim other human beings on the inside, and the cost of the constant monitoring and discipline necessary to prevent that is simply outrageous. I can think of a lot of better ways to spend my tax dollars.

You are right in identifying wrongful convictions as the biggest problem with the death penalty. People are going to die unjustly, but given the safeguards, the burden of proof, the appeals, etc. , this has to be very rare. Probably more people die from mistakes in the aviation industry than in the criminal justice system, but nobody is proposing the abolition of air travel. We just have to be extra-vigilant in the administration of our criminal justice system, not cutting any corners and allowing the accused the full spectrum of his rights under the law. I know that this is not the best administration to instil confidence in the administration of justice, but it seems to me to be highly aberrant in many respects and will soon have passed into history. U.S. administrations generally, with some noticeable exceptions, have been fairly respectful of individual human rights. The big danger of course is that Bush and Cheney get to pick one more judge for the Supreme Court before leaving office.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on July 23, 2008, 04:02:41 PM: You are right in identifying wrongful convictions as the biggest problem with the death penalty. People are going to die unjustly, but given the safeguards, the burden of proof, the appeals, etc. , this has to be very rare. Probably more people die from mistakes in the aviation industry than in the criminal justice system, but nobody is proposing the abolition of air travel.

The thing is that the only truly culpatory evidence is DNA, and many police departments do not use it all the time. They'd rather get a bad conviction without DNA than none at all, sop they can close the books on the case and claim a victory. It takes as long as 30 years to get a death sentence. That is not any sort of deterrent, and it costs more to execute a murderer than to put them away forever.

If Canada and the Dakotas can do without a death penalty, I see no reason to have it at all.

I don;t agree that all violent crimes deserve a death penalty. Certainly not if the attacked person in a fight kills the attacker. Certainly not if no one is not killed or maimed for life.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Amianthus on July 23, 2008, 04:06:03 PM: Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on July 23, 2008, 04:02:41 PM
Certainly not if the attacked person in a fight kills the attacker.

If someone is attacked and kills their attacker, that is self-defense and should not be prosecuted at all.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Michael Tee on July 23, 2008, 04:23:08 PM: <<I don;t agree that all violent crimes deserve a death penalty. Certainly not if the attacked person in a fight kills the attacker. Certainly not if no one is not killed or maimed for life.>>

So a guy who empties his revolver at a cop but misses gets rewarded for his poor marksmanship? A guy who beats his wife into a coma but doesn't kill her gets off too? Fuck that, those are exactly the kind of citizens we don't need in this world. And don't need to feed, house and maintain them for fifty or sixty years either. Most of them continue to reoffend, too. Clean up the fucking garbage before the fucking garbage cleans up you. Nothing wrong with capital punishment as long as you've got the high crime rates your country has. If you look at the records of executed murderers I'm sure you'll find plenty of innocent victims who'd be alive today if capital punishment had been applied a lot earlier in the criminal's career without waiting till he actually killed somebody.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Cynthia on July 23, 2008, 11:05:20 PM: This board is really a bunch of hateful animals sometimes. Sorry to say. Not one compassionate soul among ya. Oh well, that's par for this course.

I feel that there's always a chance for change...as change is all we can expect 100% of the time. In this case that woman made a full circle change.

Sometimes I feel that the way you guys think here.....doesn't matter that aperson is on death row..or in prison...they aint gunna get a new chance in life.

There's always ONE who will surprise us. This woman did just that, imo.

Guess you would have to be a huge believer in Jesus on this one. . on THIS one...not to say that Jesus does not hold evil accoutable.

Oh well...didn't think I would hear one soul on hear that would support the systme of rehabilitaion.

even if she was on death row.
MTee..you are quite full of hate there dude...wow...calling her a b word. Whoooooa.

That was a shocker. I thought you were much more compassionate. I guess folks have been right about you all along.

::)
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Michael Tee on July 24, 2008, 01:52:09 AM: hope you don't mind my saying this, Cynthia, but there is a point where compassion becomes pure foolishness. You understand what Karla Faye did? She sunk a pick-axe 46 times into the face, head and body of a defenceless woman, a total stranger to her, cowering under the covers of a bed and that woman died. Then claimed she got a triple orgasm out of it. You want compassion, save some of it for that poor, terrified, helpless victim. Don't waste it on the bitch that wielded the pick-axe. That's just nuts.

Sorry to say it, I'm basically a very compassionate guy, but there are some people who have just got to be held accountable. And that means they gotta PAY. With their LIVES. Because anything less is just letting them walk away from their crime scot free. Their victim is dead, and they're still alive. And that just. ain't. right. Life is an enormous gift. Life anywhere. Life in a palace, life in a prison. It's all ten thousand times better than rotting away in the ground. And it's just way too good for someone who did what Karla Faye did. You know what your problem is? You think that Karla Faye is a person just like you, only she did one bad thing and now she's gotta die for it. But the problem is that Karla Faye is NOT "just like you." You are not a person who could swing a pick-axe 46 times into a helpless, cowering human being. I dunno, maybe you could shoot them. If you were mad enough, confused enough, desperate enough. But you could never do what Karla did. So all that compassion is wasted - - you might just as well dispense it on a poisonous snake.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on July 24, 2008, 10:31:53 AM: If you look at the records of executed murderers I'm sure you'll find plenty of innocent victims who'd be alive today if capital punishment had been applied a lot earlier in the criminal's career without waiting till he actually killed somebody.

==========================================
I am sure that this is correct. But this is preemptive execution, and to my mind is no more valid than preemptive war. The difficulty is that if we were to execute psychopaths (and people like Karla Faye are clearly psychopaths) BEFORE they kill someone, we are going to off rather a lot of possibly future innocent people and there is no way we'd get them all. So I am not prepared to support preemptive executions.

Officially, it is illegal and immoral to execute insane people. However, most of the worst crimes (John Wayne Gasey, Karla Faye, and many others) are clearly insane. No sane person would commit these murders. But declare them sane and lock them up or execute them, anyway, because we really don't want them among us, and that is very understandable.

In the US is costs more to execute a murderer than to lock them up forever, so the cost should not be a factor.

Do you support capital punishment in Canada, by the way, or should only Americans execute their murders?

Why is it that the states that do not execute murders have lower murder rates?

======================
Europeans and Canadians don't have capital punishment but then again we don't have the problems of prison violence that you do.

Then the solution lies in reforming the prisons, not executions. I am sure that there are plenty of violent Canadians, Swedes and Dutchmen as well. The solution would involve isolating the violent from the non-violent.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Michael Tee on July 24, 2008, 12:07:04 PM: <<The difficulty is that if we were to execute psychopaths (and people like Karla Faye are clearly psychopaths) BEFORE they kill someone, we are going to off rather a lot of possibly future innocent people . . . >>

That's not right. Nobody would be executed just for BEING a psychopath, they'd be executed for some act of violence they already committed that we decided we didn't have to tolerate any more. ("Tolerate" in this case meaning letting the perp live.) And if the past is any guide, we'd be saving a shitload of innocent lives in the process. It's misleading to claim we would be executing some "innocent" future people, because the ones who are executed would have already forfeited their right to live by the violent crimes that they already had committed. If some of them WOULD have gone on to commit murder, as some certainly would, there is an additional bonus in the execution for us, because we have saved more innocent lives, although we just don't know whose.

<< . . . and there is no way we'd get them all. >>

Never said we would - - we never did and we never will. Anything's better than nothing. Getting 10% of them would be OK.

<<So I am not prepared to support preemptive executions.>>

What's "preemptive" about executing someone who just beat somebody else into a coma? If there are no extenuating circumstances and the guy is just a thug, we're all better off without him. Whether he goes on to kill a subsequent victim or not. We'll have a slightly better world without this guy in it than with him in it. And if there are a million more like him all going to the same place, then we'll have a noticeably better world without them.

<<Officially, it is illegal and immoral to execute insane people. However, most of the worst crimes (John Wayne Gasey, Karla Faye, and many others) are clearly insane. >>

Well, it can't be all that clear, since they either didn't enter an insanity defence or if they did, they couldn't even raise a reasonable doubt that they MIGHT be insane in the mind of one juror in twelve. You're using a pretty loose definition of insanity, BTW. The legal definition is very narrow. Your definition just boils down to "Nobody with my degree of empathy would do it."

<<In the US is costs more to execute a murderer than to lock them up forever, so the cost should not be a factor.>>

That doesn't make sense to me. I saw stats that say it's cheaper to send the guy to Harvard for a year than to keep him in custody for a year. Go to Russia or China. They'll show you how you can execute a murderer for much less than it apparently costs you.

<<Do you support capital punishment in Canada, by the way, or should only Americans execute their murders?>>

Well, with some reservations. We've had some wrongful convictions with substantial police and prosecutorial misconduct involved. The cops and the prosecutors got off without even a slap on the wrist and the taxpayers had to pay millions. I'd like to see all that fixed before I went full-out on capital punishment here, but yeah, in principle, I don't see why my tax dollars have to support some rotten murderous son of a bitch when a bullet in the back of his head would take him off everyone's hands and pay him back for what he did at the same time. People hurt, you know. The victims' families live with the pain of this man's crime for the rest of their lives. It never goes away. At least they can feel some satisfaction knowing that the bastard paid for his crimes. Seems like the least we can do for them.

<<Why is it that the states that do not execute murders have lower murder rates?>>

There are probably a lot of factors involved geographic, sociological, demographic, historic, sociological - - I wouldn't want to venture into that one, but I don't think one factor: presence or absence of capital punishment - - would answer the question.

======================
<<Europeans and Canadians don't have capital punishment but then again we don't have the problems of prison violence that you do.

<<Then the solution lies in reforming the prisons, not executions. I am sure that there are plenty of violent Canadians, Swedes and Dutchmen as well. The solution would involve isolating the violent from the non-violent.>>

And you're gonna guarantee that none of them will ever kill a guard, a trusty, a nurse, a doctor? Fuhgeddabowdit. And all that money spent, to prolong the miserable lives of a bunch of violent criminals we'd all be better off without, in a vain effort to prevent future damage being done? What's wrong with you? Face it, there are some people born who are just total write-offs. They're a menace to me and mine as long as they're alive. They can escape, they still have the POTENTIAL for future harm, in addition to the damage they've already done: and my solution to that problem is to remove the source of the problem. It's the only logical solution to the problem, and only false sentimentality, misdirected compassion, stands in the way.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on July 24, 2008, 12:41:16 PM: It's the only logical solution to the problem, and only false sentimentality, misdirected compassion, stands in the way.

The possibility of executing an innocent person seems to stand in the way for me.

The thing is, they tell the murderer that if he confesses, he'll get life. If not, he gets executed.

So the guilty confess, and the innocent refuse to confess to what they didn't do. Often they are the none-to-bright, and always they are poor and defended by incompetent public defense lawyers.

Many states will not allow DNA evidence to be admitted once they have a conviction.

Many prosecutors prefer to get convictions rather than to see that justice is done, and quite often these are different things.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Michael Tee on July 24, 2008, 02:14:15 PM: <<Many prosecutors prefer to get convictions rather than to see that justice is done, and quite often these are different things.>>

I think part of the problem is that your prosecutors are elected and ours are appointed. They can only be removed for serious misconduct, usually of a criminal nature. The Crown Attorneys up here (the equivalent of the American D.A.) have a saying, "The Crown never wins and the Crown never loses," meaning that their job is just to present the evidence and let the chips fall where they may. Nobody's job is dependent upon his or her conviction rate.

That said, we still have overzealous cops and prosecutors (even judges!!) who seek to curry favour with them, or maybe it's just a natural phenomenon, because the criminal court judges see the same Crowns and police in their courts all the time, whereas there is a passing parade of ever-changing defence counsel. There is a real chance of prosecutorial or police misconduct, which can result in wrongful convictions and our legal system was always light-years behind yours in the protection of the rights of the accused. I'm not so sure of the relative position of the two countries now, however, because your courts seem to be in retreat from the high-water marks of liberalism in this area while ours remain staunchly liberal and perhaps even still moving forward in that direction.

I would anticipate that in a capital punishment environment, guilty pleas on capital offences would not be allowed, if only because any plea would have been made under a threat of death. I think in your system, which already employs capital punishment, guilty pleas to a capital offence must be viewed by the judge in the most skeptical way possible.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on July 25, 2008, 09:58:46 AM: I would anticipate that in a capital punishment environment, guilty pleas on capital offences would not be allowed, if only because any plea would have been made under a threat of death. I think in your system, which already employs capital punishment, guilty pleas to a capital offence must be viewed by the judge in the most skeptical way possible.

==============================
This should happen, but it seems that if the accused is represented by a public defender, and/or is a member of a minority, this tends to not be observed.

When it is observed, a death sentence can take 25 years before it is finally given. That means that it is not really a deterrent, as everyone has forgotten about the crime. All the appeals mean that the process is extremely expensive as well.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Michael Tee on July 25, 2008, 11:14:17 AM: <<This should happen [judges should exercise extreme skepticism in the face of guilty pleas in capital cases], but it seems that if the accused is represented by a public defender, and/or is a member of a minority, this tends to not be observed.>>

Well, then you just need better judges.

<<When it is observed, a death sentence can take 25 years before it is finally given. >>

Even if the perp is 45 or 55 years old at the time, I'm sure it's still something he'd be extremely anxious to avoid. I don't like that punishment is delayed that much, but the alternative is the execution of a possibly innocent man, which is intolerable.

<<That means that it is not really a deterrent, as everyone has forgotten about the crime. >>

I was never much on deterrence. To me, capital punishment means a bastard getting what he deserves in return for the evil he's done and the elimination of the threat of more evil to come from him. If it deters even one onlooker from doing evil, so much the better, but I'd view that strictly as a bonus.

<<All the appeals mean that the process is extremely expensive as well.>>

There you've put your finger on one of the weak points of capital punishment. In order to eliminate the obscenity of 25-year waits for the executioner, you need to eliminate the haphazard, patch-it-up-as-you-go nature of the trial and appeal process for indigent prisoners, to ensure a first-class defence and appeal system where everything is done right the first time around. That means more money for lawyers, so each accused is defended by first-rate counsel and private investigators and experts at all stages of investigation, trial and appeal. Maybe it would cost too much. That's a judgment every decent society has to make. Justice is a commodity like anything else and if you're not willing to pay top dollar, you're not going to get the best available. Otherwise you're stuck with capital punishment and the full protection of the individual's right to life, but at a cost of long waits for full justice to be done.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on July 25, 2008, 12:45:49 PM: There you've put your finger on one of the weak points of capital punishment. In order to eliminate the obscenity of 25-year waits for the executioner, you need to eliminate the haphazard, patch-it-up-as-you-go nature of the trial and appeal process for indigent prisoners, to ensure a first-class defence and appeal system where everything is done right the first time around. That means more money for lawyers, so each accused is defended by first-rate counsel and private investigators and experts at all stages of investigation, trial and appeal. Maybe it would cost too much. That's a judgment every decent society has to make. Justice is a commodity like anything else and if you're not willing to pay top dollar, you're not going to get the best available.

==========================
I agree totally.

But after the state pays a defense attorney $250 or $300 per hour of the taxpayers' money for the very first time to defens someone everyone "knows" is guilty, well, that will be the last times this is done.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Cynthia on July 25, 2008, 11:26:07 PM: My point was that Juniorbush was an asshole to publicly make fun of her plea for a commutation of her sentence.

XO, that is the direct point!

And NOW, he's going to become a Catholic.

I hope he understands the sins he has commited. Now, I am a Catholic. I am not going to throw my faith in anyone's direction, nor am I going to say that I am perfect;) BUt, this man is our leader! He was a jerk. That woman could have lived and helped one more soul. Bush is for he saving of souls. He let his "own God" down, quite frankly.

Standards. Interesting....teachers are held to such high standards, yet leaders can bullshit their way through many a platform.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: BT on July 25, 2008, 11:39:27 PM: The point was you said he could commute her sentence and it has been proven he couldn't.

Quote
That woman could have lived and helped one more soul.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Even the Supreme Court denied her appeal.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Michael Tee on July 26, 2008, 12:26:49 PM: <<But after the state pays a defense attorney $250 or $300 per hour of the taxpayers' money for the very first time to defens someone everyone "knows" is guilty, well, that will be the last times this is done.>>

You're joking, of course. For a top-notch, first-tier criminal defence attorney? Try $900 an hour for a more realistic figure. With a $25,000 minimum paid up front. For merely good representation, go down to five or six hundred. There's a human life at stake.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Cynthia on July 26, 2008, 01:57:09 PM: Quote from: BT on July 25, 2008, 11:39:27 PM
The point was you said he could commute her sentence and it has been proven he couldn't.

Quote
That woman could have lived and helped one more soul.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Even the Supreme Court denied her appeal.

Well, my point is that Bush, Supreme Court if they had not denied her appeal....she could have helped souls in prison. THat's my opinion. The decision to let her die was in the hands of people who were not compassionate human beings, in the end. If anyone had made a terrfically positive change in life, it was she.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: BT on July 26, 2008, 03:56:17 PM: The larger point is that you wrongfully accused Bush of not commuting her sentence, when it is common knowledge that he did not have that power. This has been gone over time and again in 2000 and 2004.

You do realize that Clinton could have commuted her sentence to life in prison, he had that power.

Are you saying he was not a compassionate human being?
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Cynthia on July 26, 2008, 11:21:04 PM: Quote from: BT on July 26, 2008, 03:56:17 PM
The larger point is that you wrongfully accused Bush of not commuting her sentence, when it is common knowledge that he did not have that power. This has been gone over time and again in 2000 and 2004.

You do realize that Clinton could have commuted her sentence to life in prison, he had that power.

Are you saying he was not a compassionate human being?

No, not really, BT. I remember hearing that Bush was the one who was responsible for her final death call.
If Clinton could have commuted her sentence to life.....then shame on his ass, as well.

My bad.
I don't want to jump into a debate against Bush on a personal level. There really isn't any sense in it, as things come down....most politicians are BS'ers. . . including Obama.
The real world is not on the top of the ladder. It is on the ground floor with those who want power to change the world one flexed muscle at a time.....with no regard to anyone, really. I sound like a skeptic, but I am a realist. Bush makes me mad. He seems arrogant, and he seems to be calling for more war than is necessary. Clinton was the opposite. So , go figure.
They all deserve shame. Targets are just THAT. Targets. Easy to shoot at because they exist for us to shoot at....d'oh

Ok, Jr. Bush has been our leader, and I tend to think of him as an arrogant Conservative Texan. But, hell, Clinton was no better. In fact, he was worse, imo. He was equally arrogant and self centered, and in fact a sexually driven male. Problem was ...he was in our scope. He wasn't smart, either. So...who will be the best leader in any element....local or state of national?

Tucker is dead...but in the eyes of Christ, she's not.

The rest is gravy.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: BT on July 26, 2008, 11:48:18 PM: Quote
They all deserve shame. Targets are just THAT. Targets. Easy to shoot at because they exist for us to shoot at....d'oh

Is that so?

I thought most people run for public office because they think they can do good for the community.

Now i find out they they can be wrongly accused simply because they are in the public eye and petty people feel they are entitled to any wrongheaded slur they feel like uttering.

But the real fact is that the target doesn't lose credibility. The slurrer does, especially when they are flat out wrong.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: fatman on July 26, 2008, 11:53:59 PM: Now i find out they they can be wrongly accused simply because they are in the public eye and petty people feel they are entitled to any wrongheaded slur they feel like uttering.

But the real fact is that the target doesn't lose credibility. The slurrer does, especially when they are flat out wrong.

Hmmm, reminds me of someone I know in here.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Cynthia on July 27, 2008, 12:09:03 AM: Quote from: BT on July 26, 2008, 11:48:18 PM
Quote
They all deserve shame. Targets are just THAT. Targets. Easy to shoot at because they exist for us to shoot at....d'oh

Is that so?

I thought most people run for public office because they think they can do good for the community.

Now i find out they they can be wrongly accused simply because they are in the public eye and petty people feel they are entitled to any wrongheaded slur they feel like uttering.

But the real fact is that the target doesn't lose credibility. The slurrer does, especially when they are flat out wrong.

Come on BT....define WRONG.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: BT on July 27, 2008, 12:21:11 AM: Wrong - not right.
Incorrect.

In a colloquial sense, wrongness usually refers to a state of incorrectness, inaccuracy, error or miscalculation in any number of contexts. More specifically, being "wrong" refers to a situation wherein an individual has made an error or misjudgment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrong)
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Cynthia on July 27, 2008, 12:22:45 AM: Quote from: BT on July 27, 2008, 12:21:11 AM
Wrong - not right.
Incorrect.

In a colloquial sense, wrongness usually refers to a state of incorrectness, inaccuracy, error or miscalculation in any number of contexts. More specifically, being "wrong" refers to a situation wherein an individual has made an error or misjudgment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrong)

very funny.

You are kidding.....define your wrong in this post...BT. . give me a break.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: BT on July 27, 2008, 12:40:17 AM: Wrong in this case was your claim that Bush could commute Tucker's sentence.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Cynthia on July 27, 2008, 01:00:32 AM: Thank you....now you are getting the idea of how to address a post with the proper answer...instead of a flippant remark.

"I thought most people run for public office because they think they can do good for the community.

Now i find out they they can be wrongly accused simply because they are in the public eye and petty people feel they are entitled to any wrongheaded slur they feel like uttering.

But the real fact is that the target doesn't lose credibility. The slurrer does, especially when they are flat out wrong."

What is wrong here, is that you are supporting a man who is in 'office' and who was not capable of honoring life. But he is surely capable of powerfully demanding a death decision of another human being. (he meaning any person who called for her death..ok, maybe not Bush..you're PC there). You seem to want justice based on your own desire for the win in this debate, however, BT...instead of the issue that is/was a life and death decision.

Death was the result.
CLinton was no better....death seems to come at the hands of many a politician.

I wonder if Kennedy JFK would have stopped the deaths of the Vietnam era.

I wonder if Obama can stop the waste that is war in the next generation.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: BT on July 27, 2008, 01:20:29 AM: Quote
What is wrong here, is that you are supporting a man who is in 'office' and who was not capable of honoring life. But he is surely capable of powerfully demanding a death decision of another human being. (he meaning any person who called for her death..ok, maybe not Bush..you're PC there).

There you go again.

How do you know he is incapable of honoring life? What evidence do you have that this is true? Is this just a feeling you have? Is it based on anything concrete?

You didn't have any problem with his sending troops to afghanistan, so hopefully you won't uses war as your justification for your charge.

He didn't demand any decison of death from anyone. If you have information to the contrary, please provide it.

Quote
hank you....now you are getting the idea of how to address a post with the proper answer...instead of a flippant remark.

Save that tone for the youngsters in your charge.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Cynthia on July 27, 2008, 01:32:43 AM: Save that tone for the youngsters in your charge."

LOL, well, Reagan would say....

THere you go again.....ha.

BT...come on, I do not have such a tone with my students.

I am known for being one of the most compassionate teachers on staff. In fact, I have a new student who's father was murdered and placed in a trunk of a car.
The counselor and the principal know me to the only teacher to help this child through such an ordeal this year.

. So, please keep my personal life out of your lame excuse for a debate.

Bush was an idiot when it comes to the case of Tucker..Xavier stated just so.

He might not have had the final say in her death, but I heard him clearly state that

"THAT'S THE WAY IT GOES" IN THE STATE of Texas.

Rules are rules....
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Cynthia on July 27, 2008, 01:41:39 AM: Quote from: BT on July 27, 2008, 01:20:29 AM
Quote
What is wrong here, is that you are supporting a man who is in 'office' and who was not capable of honoring life. But he is surely capable of powerfully demanding a death decision of another human being. (he meaning any person who called for her death..ok, maybe not Bush..you're PC there).

There you go again.

How do you know he is incapable of honoring life? What evidence do you have that this is true? Is this just a feeling you have? Is it based on anything concrete?

You didn't have any problem with his sending troops to afghanistan, so hopefully you won't uses war as your justification for your charge.

He didn't demand any decison of death from anyone. If you have information to the contrary, please provide it.

Quote
hank you....now you are getting the idea of how to address a post with the proper answer...instead of a flippant remark.

Save that tone for the youngsters in your charge.

Wrong is you sticking up any politician who calls for death when there was a chance for life and reform.
What is your opinion about any human being who has commited a crime and yet turned her life after so many years in prison?
Would you consider a person's life as changed....or would you slam the book== electric style, injection mode== in the direction of that person's criminal intent, albeit in the far distant past of long ago.

Is there not a system set up for reform in our society?

How would you decide -----as a politician -----who lives and who dies, if you had that choice?
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: BT on July 27, 2008, 02:00:14 AM: Quote
Bush was an idiot when it comes to the case of Tucker..Xavier stated just so..

XO is now an expert?

Quote
He might not have had the final say in her death, but I heard him clearly state that

"THAT'S THE WAY IT GOES" IN THE STATE of Texas.

Rules are rules...

That is the way it goes in the state of Texas.

Quote
Wrong is you sticking up any politician who calls for death when there was a chance for life and reform.

What chance was there in the Tucker case? She exhausted her appeals and Bush (as well as any Texas Governor since Ma Ferguson) didn't have the power to commute her sentence. What part of that equation do you fail to comprehend?

Quote
So, please keep my personal life out of your lame excuse for a debate.

Debates usually turn on the presentation of facts. We have already established that you are factually challenged in this particular thread. So whose debate tactics are lame?
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Cynthia on July 27, 2008, 02:03:46 AM: We have already established that you are factually challenged in this particular thread. So whose debate tactics are lame?

That's right...We have established that YOU are challenged, BT. . . in the way of your LACK OF compassion for life.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: BT on July 27, 2008, 02:43:20 AM: Quote
That's right...We have established that YOU are challenged, BT. . . in the way of your LACK OF compassion for life.

Have we? Provide evidence please.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Cynthia on July 27, 2008, 03:27:41 AM: "XO is now an expert?"

Yep\!!! You got it, btw

This argument is silly.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: BT on July 27, 2008, 04:15:50 AM: Quote
That's right...We have established that YOU are challenged, BT. . . in the way of your LACK OF compassion for life.
Quote
Have we? Provide evidence please.

Didn't think you could.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Cynthia on July 27, 2008, 04:30:58 AM: Quote from: BT on July 27, 2008, 04:15:50 AM

Quote
That's right...We have established that YOU are challenged, BT. . . in the way of your LACK OF compassion for life.
Quote
Have we? Provide evidence please.

Didn't think you could.

LOL...I have used that line on Sirs....

Fact is....the evidence is that you are the one challenged in many a thread, BT

Based on the very words you type. The evidence is in the very words you breathe. Fact.

You are challenged when it comes to an argument.

You always bring things back to the individual in the form of a patronizing comment....a comment based on your own bias.

We all do that....so what is your truth is not mine.

I don't think you will be able to prove evidence that Bush was not compassionate in his life as President.

We can not judge those hearts and souls.

So , we both lose the argument.

No one can really analyze the inner soul of another human being, as much as we try to do so.

Politicians try to do so in order to make their point in a run for the higher office of the land.

Facts are few and few between. ha!

I simply disagree with you, BT. You aren't always right.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: BT on July 27, 2008, 04:38:32 AM: You make an accusation and then fail to back it up.

Why is that?

Quote
We can not judge those hearts and souls.
No one can really analyze the inner soul of another human being, as much as we try to do so.

yet you say i have no compassion. How do you know this. What evidence do you have?

Quote
I don't think you will be able to prove evidence that Bush was not compassionate in his life as President.

That was your claim. Why should i prove a negative?

Quote
You aren't always right.

Never said i was.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Cynthia on July 27, 2008, 04:42:17 AM: Quote from: BT on July 27, 2008, 04:38:32 AM
You make an accusation and then fail to back it up.

Why is that?

Quote
We can not judge those hearts and souls.
No one can really analyze the inner soul of another human being, as much as we try to do so.

yet you say i have no compassion. How do you know this. What evidence do you have?

Quote
I don't think you will be able to prove evidence that Bush was not compassionate in his life as President.

That was your claim. Why should i prove a negative?

Quote
You aren't always right.

Never said i was.

Not compassionate...true...can't prove a negative, but Bush's example via his actions proves his lack there of.

You aren't always right, but I do respect you, BT.

God, I am up late....I have fewer and fewer between days left before the children come to school....

I can't wait for my new crew.
I met them on Friday. ONe child's father was killed and put into a trunk.
I have my work cut out for me with him.

I do love my job.

Talk to you all soon.

Cindy
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: BT on July 27, 2008, 04:50:38 AM: (http://content5.clipmarks.com/image_cache/BitDrifter/512/11F7207A-7BDA-46C4-A278-09ECBC2E14CB.jpg)

Do you think less of George W Bush for crying in public?

Last Updated: 10:02PM BST 19 Apr 2008

Comments 183 | Comment on this article

President George W Bush was seen crying in public at a Congressional Medal of Honor ceremony yesterday.

A tear rolled down Mr Bush's cheek as he honoured 22-year-old Marine Jason Dunham, killed two years ago when he fell on a hand grenade in Iraq to save his comrades.

Do you think less of Mr Bush for crying at the event? Would it have been more fitting for the president to have kept a stiff upper lip? Do you agree with the British rock group, The Cure, that "Boys Don't Cry"? Was it self indulgent for him to weep, particularly given his role in the war? Do you, perhaps, even think it was a cynical move on the president's part to be seen crying?

Or do you respect Mr Bush more after his public display of emotion? Does it demonstrate the human side of the president which has been the key to his political success? Does it serve as a demonstration that he feels the pain of families whose loved ones have sacrificed their lives for their country?

If you were serving your country would you feel inspired or embarrassed by the sight of your commander-in-chief crying?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/yourview/1539288/Do-you-think-less-of-George-W-Bush-for-crying-in-public.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/yourview/1539288/Do-you-think-less-of-George-W-Bush-for-crying-in-public.html)
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Cynthia on July 27, 2008, 05:02:58 AM: A tear rolled down Mr Bush's cheek as he honoured 22-year-old Marine Jason Dunham, killed two years ago when he fell on a hand grenade in Iraq to save his comrades.

Well, I do honor the veteran.

So I leave it at that for tonight.

Be back soon.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on July 27, 2008, 11:25:28 AM: Bush was an idiot when it comes to the case of Tucker..Xavier stated just so..

XO is now an expert?

-------------------------------------
Well, gee, thanks.

What I meant was that Juniorbush was an idiot when he made fun of Karla Tucker's plea for a commutation of her sentence. He imitated her voice as a squeaky whine. This is the sort of crap that only villains in bad movies do. It was unworthy, even if Tucker was a monster when she carried out a brutal murder. Juniorbush represented the State of Texas, and the State has no business mocking anyone before it kills them.

I think any sane person can agree with this.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: BT on July 27, 2008, 02:40:04 PM: Quote
Juniorbush represented the State of Texas, and the State has no business mocking anyone before it kills them.

I guess you don't recall the World War posters.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: BT on July 27, 2008, 02:48:52 PM: Quote
In the year following her execution, a journalist questioned Governor Bush about how the Board of Pardons and Parole had arrived at the determination on her clemency plea. The journalist, conservative commentator Tucker Carlson, alleged that Bush, alluding to an televised interview which Karla Faye Tucker had given to talk show host Larry King, smirked and spoke mockingly about her on account of her clemency plea:[7]

In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, a number of protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Karla Faye Tucker. "Did you meet with any of them?" I ask. Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I didn't meet with any of them", he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. "I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with Tucker, though. He asked her real difficult questions like, 'What would you say to Governor Bush?'" "What was her answer?" I wonder. "'Please,'" Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "'don't kill me.'" I must look shocked ? ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel ? because he immediately stops smirking.

Journalist Carlson followed up on Bush's alleged remark by reviewing a videotape of the interview on Larry King's show. Carlson found that Tucker had in fact not uttered the entreaty, "Please don't kill me" nor words to that effect.[8] Bush denied Carlson's allegations. No other witness corroborated Carlson's story.

Maybe the alleged smirk and mocking never happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Faye_Tucker#Attempts_at_Clemency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Faye_Tucker#Attempts_at_Clemency)
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on July 27, 2008, 04:25:03 PM: If it happened, it was totally inappropriate.
If this sort of crap was on WWII posters, so was that.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: BT on July 27, 2008, 05:22:54 PM: Quote
If it happened, it was totally inappropriate.

Key word is IF

The story seems to be passed around like it was gospel. And there are some amongst us who question the veracity of the Gospel.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on July 28, 2008, 10:24:57 AM: Believing anything Juniorbush says is difficult. He is similar in this to Joe Isuzu.
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: BT on July 28, 2008, 02:29:29 PM: Quote
Believing anything Juniorbush says is difficult. He is similar in this to Joe Isuzu.

Isn't the real question, whether we should believe Tucker Carlson?
Title: Re: The Democrats Are the Problem
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on July 28, 2008, 03:30:57 PM: I really don't care about this enough to discuss it any longer.

Juniorbush was lying, Carson was lying, or perhaps both were lying. No tapes were made in which the truth can be determined, so it is just a matter of who you trust.

Nor can anyone bring Karla Faye back from the dead.

So this has reached a dead end.