Endzone Animal Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Michael Savage is correct: liberalism is indeed a mental disorder. Reading the leftwingnuts here who believe it is wrong to execute because it doesn't deter violent crime as much as jail and psycho therapy. Reading leftwingnuts who think it is beneath us as humans to execute our most brutal and viscious criminals, but then make the circular argument out of the other side of their mouths that jail is worse than death. Reading leftwingnuts blather on about excessive costs of execution, yet backing the endless ACLU appeals that are responsible for running up the tab and prolonging the executions for decades. Reading the leftwingnuts whine about how punishing the criminal while avenging the victim is no way to run a civilized system of justice, believing instead we need to rehabilitate and provide therapy for the criminal who's as much the victim as the child he raped - the victim of an unjust capitalist society. I honestly believe these "progressives" are self-loathing utopian cultists, brainwashed by their leaders who worship a twisted ideology that despises humanity, seeking a perfect world in which mankind is transformed into a smallish subspecies living with nature on herbal communes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Michael Savage is correct: liberalism ... [blah, blah, blah] Are you going to respond to arguments or just keep posting whatever you feel like? If you're not Molson, you sure have is MO down perfectly...just on the other side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Are you going to respond to arguments or just keep posting whatever you feel like? If you're not Molson, you sure have is MO down perfectly...just on the other side. The difference being Molson would have started 6 threads about the content of his one post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endzone Animal Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Are you going to respond to arguments or just keep posting whatever you feel like? If you're not Molson, you sure have is MO down perfectly...just on the other side. I believe my response was on topic and directly summarizing the circular logic I have read here in opposition to the death penalty. Is it the fact that I don't agree with your viewpoint that upsets you? And who the hell is this Molson? I like their beer if that counts, so since you seem to be anti-Molson I take it you are a Labatt's guy? I'm good with both, so we have no argument on this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Michael Savage is correct: liberalism is indeed a mental disorder. Reading the leftwingnuts here who believe it is wrong to execute because it doesn't deter violent crime as much as jail and psycho therapy. Reading leftwingnuts who think it is beneath us as humans to execute our most brutal and viscious criminals, but then make the circular argument out of the other side of their mouths that jail is worse than death. Reading leftwingnuts blather on about excessive costs of execution, yet backing the endless ACLU appeals that are responsible for running up the tab and prolonging the executions for decades. Reading the leftwingnuts whine about how punishing the criminal while avenging the victim is no way to run a civilized system of justice, believing instead we need to rehabilitate and provide therapy for the criminal who's as much the victim as the child he raped - the victim of an unjust capitalist society. I honestly believe these "progressives" are self-loathing utopian cultists, brainwashed by their leaders who worship a twisted ideology that despises humanity, seeking a perfect world in which mankind is transformed into a smallish subspecies living with nature on herbal communes. wow, did you get all of Rush's soundbite in one rambling paragraph? Nice job. That takes a lot of thought and planning. Almost as much thought and planning as it takes to emotionally react to crimes with a "off with his head!" chants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endzone Animal Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 wow, did you get all of Rush's soundbite in one rambling paragraph? Nice job. That takes a lot of thought and planning. Almost as much thought and planning as it takes to emotionally react to crimes with a "off with his head!" chants. Rush quotes Savage now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 No. In fact, if I were planning a heinous crime that would result in capital punishment, I'd prefer the capital punishment to lifetime incarceration. If it was just a crime of passion (as most are), the death penalty would never even enter my mind. I guess you are right, but there would seem to be a need for some type of limit. If a person rapes and perhaps murders a kid and goes to prison, what happens when he murders a correction officer? Do we give him another life sentence? Perhaps I am not a good person for my view, but I have no problem with our worst criminals getting iced. In fact, I am for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Perhaps I am not a good person for my view, but I have no problem with our worst criminals getting iced. In fact, I am for it. You're talking about JP again aren't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 You're talking about JP again aren't you? No. If JP was arrested, he could tidy up the prison. Trent could give it the white glove test. This would make the place healthier and cut medical costs for taxpayers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 I guess you are rught, but there would seem to be a need for some type of limit. If a person rapes and perhaps murders a kid and goes to prison, what happens when he murders a correction officer? Do we give him another life sentence? Perhaps I am not a good person for my view, but I have no problem with our worst criminals getting iced. In fact, I am for it. I waffle on the death penalty issue. My posts in this thread are to poke holes in 2 oft-cited rationales for the death penalty: cost-savings and deterrence. I don't buy either one. The death penalty is mostly about vengeance, and I'm not against it based on that--just pointing it out. When I hear about a heinous crime (esp where kids are involved), I think the death penalty is exactly what's needed. But that's about revenge, not deterrence or cost-savings. On the other hand, when I hear about the innocents or mentally impaired on death row (the vast minority, admittedly), my blood runs cold at the thought of our government bestowed with the power to kill its citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 I believe my response was on topic and directly summarizing the circular logic I have read here in opposition to the death penalty. Is it the fact that I don't agree with your viewpoint that upsets you? And who the hell is this Molson? I like their beer if that counts, so since you seem to be anti-Molson I take it you are a Labatt's guy? I'm good with both, so we have no argument on this topic. This is your best post to date. I am a Labatt guy. You have ignored the entirety of the counter-arguments in this thread. That's Molson-like behavior, whether you're him or not. And I don't disagree with you--just your arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endzone Animal Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 This is your best post to date. I am a Labatt guy. You have ignored the entirety of the counter-arguments in this thread. That's Molson-like behavior, whether you're him or not. And I don't disagree with you--just your arguments. I fail to see how I've remotely ignored the opposing arguments on this thread. I guess this means we are now arguing the style of the argument rather than the substance, which seems a bit ridiculous and a waste of time. If Molson, your apparent arc-nemesis, is no longer commenting on these boards any longer it may be because he felt this was a bit foolish. Labatt's is a good brew, but I can appreciate Molson's as well...perhaps this makes me the open minded one in this squabble? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 What are some members' thoughts on the idea that the death penalty creates additional victims? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endzone Animal Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 What are some members' thoughts on the idea that the death penalty creates additional victims? Who would be the additional victim...the criminal? The one who is being punished for the crime certainly is not a victim, he is paying the price for what he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Rush quotes Savage now? Aren't they the same thing? What is the difference other than the drug addiction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endzone Animal Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Aren't they the same thing? What is the difference other than the drug addiction? Are you stupid? That's just like saying all liberals are monolithic. Savage and Rush disagree on many issues, and if you listened to their shows you might realize that. How about on the left, does Ed Schultz and Mike Malloy agree on everything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Who would be the additional victim...the criminal? The one who is being punished for the crime certainly is not a victim, he is paying the price for what he did. Not by a long shot. I was thinking about the family members of the one being punished. Should mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, etc. come into consideration? If so, when? If not, why not? But if we're just sticking to those being punished, what about those that have been wrongly accused and put to death for a crime they never committed? Did we not create an additional victim in those instances? Is there the potential to mistakenly put additional people to death in the future and thus create even more victims? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endzone Animal Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Not by a long shot. I was thinking about the family members of the one being punished. Should mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, etc. come into consideration? If so, when? If not, why not? But if we're just sticking to those being punished, what about those that have been wrongly accused and put to death for a crime they never committed? Did we not create an additional victim in those instances? Is there the potential to mistakenly put additional people to death in the future and thus create even more victims? In an ideal world justice would be 100% accurate. It can't be, ever, but fortunately our system is the best available and the incidents of error are thankfully minute. There will be mistakes, but the idea of sentencing based on the verdicts not being accurate is even more flawed and destructive to the prosecution of crime. As far as extended family of the criminal goes, if they are humane they will only feel for the victim and understand why what's being done needs to be done. In a crime there is only one victim and that's the person who was killed or savagely raped by the guilty party. The criminal and his family are not victims, and the guilty party hopefully will die with genuine remorse for the victim(s) of their crime(s). If not, all the better that they are being killed for what they've done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 You're talking about JP again aren't you? The bleeding hearts would argue that JP just needs one more chance The law and order types would argue cite 3 strike and you're out laws Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts