Live blogging at NM State Senate

I am live blogging here right now. Debate is over the proposed legislation to repeal the death penalty in New Mexico. You will probably not be surprised at which side I’m taking.

Update: The bill passed 24-18, with a lot of debate that didn’t stand a chance of convincing anyone. If the lower house passes it (which I’m sure it will) it goes to Gov. Bill Richardson, who has been a supporter of the death penalty but has indicated recently that his support has softened, and he might sign the bill. He has not yet made up his mind.

Comments 27

  1. Dan wrote:

    And yes, I could care less about the vermin who rape and kill, I leave that caring to the left-wing bed-wetters such as yourself.

    So you don’t even believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty. How am I not surprised? You clearly hate America and the individual liberties it stands for, why don’t you move to some authoritarian theocracy which shares your disdain for civil liberties such as Iran or Zimbabwe?

    I’m more interested in justice for the victims and their families.

    Victims and families don’t get “justice”. They get vengeance.

    That’s something you’ll never know about or understand.

    It’s about honor, something that is alien to you Dan.

    Bowden, I was raised in a military family. I understand honor. Honor isn’t exacting revenge against anyone who you think has wronged you. Honor is staying true to your word and striving to do the right thing. Maybe some day you’ll learn the difference.

    Of course, that would require you to admit (even to yourself) that one of your opinions is wrong, so I imagine it will never happen.

    ps: Bed-wetters? Really? You have the mental maturity of an eight year old. No wonder you see the world in such a simplistic black and white fashion.

    Posted 19 Mar 2009 at 8:26 pm
  2. Dan wrote:

    So you can’t give us a definition of your new religion- socialism.

    I’m actually a libertarian, which is the opposite of a socialist on the individual freedom scale. Don’t let your idiotic assumptions stop you though! Speaking of which:

    How funny, you’re so afraid that your little BA in poli-sci will be shown to be nothing more than indoctrination 101 that you can’t answer a little question..

    My bachelor’s is actually in computer science, and my master’s is in business administration. Keep reaching for the stars though.

    Brigette knows I know the definition, but many here have major doubts about you and your “eduction”.

    Brigette may humor your inane rantings but, as she has an oh-so-worthless poly sci degree (ho ho ho) I’m sure she could explain to you that socialists, for one thing, favor seizing the means of production. The don’t favor massive government bailouts of private corporations using money taken from the working class.

    Hugo Chavez is a Socialist. Barrack Obama (and, more importantly, his economic advisers and cabinet) are Keynesian Capitalists. You’d be able to spot the difference if you weren’t so contemptuous of education.

    Here’s a little test: You spelled “education” wrong. Can you admit it?

    Posted 19 Mar 2009 at 8:39 pm
  3. Bowden Russell wrote:

    guilty. How am I not surprised? You clearly hate America and the individual liberties it stands for, why don’t you move to some authoritarian theocracy which shares your disdain for civil liberties such as Iran or Zimbabwe?

    Again, the ability to twist and misconstrue the words of your opposition is astounding!

    Here, since you’re obviously an English-as-a-second-language student I’ll spell it out for you!

    Once convicted, upon a turn-down of their appeal, take them outside and spend $.25 worth of lead to solve the problem.

    See, I’m for giving them a fair trial, just making the sentence quick, effective and I save the taxpayers millions of dollars!

    Brigette may humor your inane rantings but, as she has an oh-so-worthless poly sci degree (ho ho ho) I’m sure she could explain to you that socialists, for one thing, favor seizing the means of production. The don’t favor massive government bailouts of private corporations using money taken from the working class.

    I’m sorry, has not the government done that with AIG, banks and now GM and Chrysler?

    Did not the government pick the CEO of AIG? Does not the government own 80% of AIG?

    And, as evidence that the govt. controls the means of production, what business is it of the government if AIG gives it’s executives bonuses if not for the fact that the government actually does control AIG?

    Now I’m opposed to the bonuses, but that is between the shareholders-wait, that would be the government at 80% ownership-and the officers who run AIG.

    Sorry, your ignorance of economics surpasses your ignorance of history and politics it would appear.

    You’re more loony than even I thought you were if you think I’m for the bail-outs, which your kameraden Obama is a huge supporter of.

    And you’re no libertarian Dan, whose background is probably made up given you refuse to tell us anything about yourself.

    No libertarian worth his salt would support Obama’s power grab. All you do on the blog is attack Republicans and defend Democrats.

    I’ve never heard a libertarian defend Clinton like you have done.

    You’re a dyed-in-the-wool socialist.

    And as far as honor goes, you don’t know anything about it, or you wouldn’t hide behind your nom de plume like you do.

    Posted 19 Mar 2009 at 9:33 pm
  4. Dan wrote:

    Once convicted, upon a turn-down of their appeal, take them outside and spend $.25 worth of lead to solve the problem.

    Your understanding of death penalty laws is about as about as infantile as your understanding of… well, everything else.

    And, as evidence that the govt. controls the mean’s of production, what business is it of the government if AIG gives it’s executives bonuses if not for the fact that the government actually does control AIG?

    The government *bought* 80% of AIG to prevent the capitalist economies of the entire world from failing. They didn’t *seize* anything. And, just as a reminder, they did so at the urging of those socialists George W Bush, Henry Paulson, and Ben Bernanke, not Obama or Geithner.

    Of course, you probably actually do consider Bush, Paulson, and Bernanke socialists so maybe that sentence will be lost on you.

    Sorry, your ignorance of economics surpasses your ignorance of history and politics it would appear.

    Oh, the delicious irony.

    You’re more loony than even I thought you were if you think I’m for the bail-outs, which your kameraden Obama is a huge supporter of.

    I never said you were in favor of the bailouts. Is your world view really so narrow that you think that there’s only two courses of action, the capitalist one and the socialist one? Was George H W Bush a socialist when he and congress bailed out the Savings and Loans?

    And you’re no libertarian Dan, who’s background is probably made up given you refuse to tell us anything about yourself.

    I refuse to tell you anything specific about myself because you come off as irrational and emotional in your comments and I prefer not to risk the headache of having to deal with you in real life should you decide to act as irrationally as you post.

    So what’s your background Bowden? What is your degree in?

    No libertarian worth his salt would support Obama’s power grab. All you do on the blog is attack Republicans and defend Democrats.

    What power grab are you referring to? The only power grab I’m aware of is the Bush/Cheney executive power grab, which I’m disappointed in Obama thus far for failing to completely repudiate. What powers are you contending that Obama has seized that were not previously held by the executive branch?

    I defend Democrats on this blog because everyone else on it is uniformly Republican. When Brigette posts something pro-GOP or anti-Dem that I agree with I don’t feel any need to chime in because there’s already going to be two to four responses about how right she is from the conservative readership anyway.

    I’ve never heard a libertarian defend Clinton like you have done.

    Why wouldn’t a libertarian defend Clinton? His only real anti-liberty black marks are Waco/Ruby Ridge and don’t ask/don’t tell. He was certainly the most centrist president policy-wise since Ford. For all your shrieking about how he (and anyone else left of Pat Buchanan, for that matter) was a socialist, he enacted practically no new government programs during his term and kept the deficit low both when his party controlled congress and when the GOP did. That’s something that none of the last three GOP presidents can say. He also strong-armed NAFTA through a very reluctant Democrat-controlled congress, although I’m disappointed in some of the protectionism that both Clinton and Bush (and probably Obama in the future) engaged in with our supposedly free trading partners, particularly Canada in the lumber and steel markets.

    Perhaps you’re mistaking small-l libertarians with the Ayn Rand worshiping Libertarian Party.

    You’re a dyed-in-the-wool socialist.

    Again, you have absolutely no idea what socialism is. I’m a capitalist, just not of the supply-side school. Your inability to separate any economic theory that isn’t exactly in line with the one you’ve been sold by the GOP echo chamber – which holds that the only way to improve the economy is through tax cuts and eliminating regulation – from socialism isn’t my concern.

    And as far as honor goes, you don’t know anything about it, or you wouldn’t hide behind your nom de plume like you do.

    I’d love to hear your credentials for presuming to tell other people what is and is not honorable. What is your definition of honor, Bowden?

    Is it honorable for you to be unable to even admit to a misspelling/typo? How long are you going to keep refusing to admit even the tiniest of mistakes? Do you do that in real life or only on the internet?

    Posted 19 Mar 2009 at 10:47 pm
  5. Dan wrote:

    Forgot to respond to this:

    And, as evidence that the govt. controls the mean’s of production, what business is it of the government if AIG gives it’s executives bonuses if not for the fact that the government actually does control AIG?

    If the government controlled AIG as absolutely as you claim, the bonuses would have already been revoked, just FYI.

    Posted 19 Mar 2009 at 10:57 pm
  6. Bowden Russell wrote:

    Dan said,

    The government *bought* 80% of AIG to prevent the capitalist economies of the entire world from failing. They didn’t *seize* anything. And, just as a reminder, they did so at the urging of those socialists George W Bush, Henry Paulson, and Ben Bernanke, not Obama or Geithner.

    1. I don’t remember seizing being part of the definition of socialism. Can you point out to me where that term comes up w/r/t control of the mean’s of production?

    2. If AIG’s collapse would cause the fall of the “free world”, then isn’t the United States Government essentially now controlling the economies, by your own definition, of these economies since the USG controls AIG?

    Sounds like you’ve done the literall definition of the USG being socialistic for me.

    Thanks!

    Of course, you probably actually do consider Bush, Paulson, and Bernanke socialists so maybe that sentence will be lost on you.

    Instead of assuming what I think about Bush, Paulson and Bernanke, why not ask me?

    Posted 20 Mar 2009 at 5:46 am
  7. Bowden Russell wrote:

    If the government controlled AIG as absolutely as you claim, the bonuses would have already been revoked, just FYI.

    No Dan, whom I suspect slept through contractural law class, or perhaps didn’t take that class.

    You see it turns out that Geithner inserted into the stimulus bill, that Obama forced down our throats, saying we didn’t have time to have hearings or even read the bill, the provision that the executives of AIG would be allowed to have the bonuses!

    Thus, the government, which owns AIG, gave permission for the bonuses to be paid. Are you getting this Dan, AIG got permission from the money men who own their company, the Obama administration, with the help of Sen. Chris Dodd (D), to make sure the corrupt indviduals of AIG would get their money.

    Since it was part of their contract with the government that they got the bonuses, the goverment will have to take them to court to recind them.

    Won’t happen. The Obama Administration f***ed up badly on this one.

    I love how the Water Walker loves to pretend he’s fighting against AIG, but it was his Administration which allowed the bonuses to be paid!

    Posted 20 Mar 2009 at 5:52 am
  8. Bowden Russell wrote:

    Why wouldn’t a libertarian defend Clinton? His only real anti-liberty black marks are Waco/Ruby Ridge and don’t ask/don’t tell. He was certainly the most centrist president policy-wise since Ford

    What a liar you are! Clinton took personal income taxes rates from 28% and raised them to 39%!

    What libertarian supports that baloney? Not a one. You’re a hyper-liberal.

    Again you have failed, miserably as usual, to propagate the big lie.

    Posted 20 Mar 2009 at 5:56 am
  9. Dan wrote:

    What a liar you are! Clinton took personal income taxes rates from 28% and raised them to 39%!

    What libertarian supports that baloney? Not a one. You’re a hyper-liberal.

    Again you have failed, miserably as usual, to propagate the big lie.

    What kind of psychosis does it take to imagine that marginal tax rates have anything to do with liberty?

    Your understanding of libertarianism is about as deep as your understanding of socialism, economics, or history in general.

    Posted 20 Mar 2009 at 2:17 pm
  10. Dan wrote:

    Instead of assuming what I think about Bush, Paulson and Bernanke, why not ask me?

    Because you have never answered a single question I’ve ever asked you.

    Posted 20 Mar 2009 at 2:19 pm
  11. Dan wrote:

    2. If AIG’s collapse would cause the fall of the “free world”, then isn’t the United States Government essentially now controlling the economies, by your own definition, of these economies since the USG controls AIG?

    No? AIG never controlled other economies or companies it just insured banks and other finance companies all over the world on their hyper-risky credit default swaps. Are you really this dense?

    This is the part where you claim credit default swaps were Barney Frank’s fault.

    Posted 20 Mar 2009 at 2:22 pm
  12. Dan wrote:

    What is your background and education Bowden?

    I’d love to hear your credentials for presuming to tell other people what is and is not honorable. What is your definition of honor, Bowden?

    Is it honorable for you to be unable to even admit to a misspelling/typo? How long are you going to keep refusing to admit even the tiniest of mistakes? Do you do that in real life or only on the internet?

    Posted 20 Mar 2009 at 2:23 pm
  13. Dan wrote:

    1. I don’t remember seizing being part of the definition of socialism. Can you point out to me where that term comes up w/r/t control of the mean’s of production?

    You don’t know anything about socialism, why would anyone expect you to remember specific tenets of it?

    Why do you keep spelling means as “mean’s”?

    Posted 20 Mar 2009 at 2:28 pm
  14. Bowden Russell wrote:

    Dan said,

    Why wouldn’t a libertarian defend Clinton? His only real anti-liberty black marks are Waco/Ruby Ridge and don’t ask/don’t tell.

    Man you can really sling the bull***t Dan. You’re the best at slinging it.

    Clinton wasn’t President when Ruby Ridge went down.

    Another Dan lie unmasked, again.

    The question is, will Dan finally admit he wasn’t an adult during Clinton’s administration?

    Nice going sticking up for Clinton and blaming him for something that didn’t even happen on his watch, kid.

    Posted 20 Mar 2009 at 5:49 pm
  15. Bowden Russell wrote:

    You don’t know anything about socialism, why would anyone expect you to remember specific tenets of it?

    Give me a break, you’ve been owned, again, on your lies and your inability to admit that the government owning AIG is in fact socialistic.

    Why do you keep spelling means as “mean’s”?

    I am usually writing late at night after 6-7 straight of doing AP physics and AP Caculus.
    We tend to make mistakes at that time.

    Now, care to admit you don’t know squat about the Clinton Administration kid?

    Posted 20 Mar 2009 at 5:52 pm
  16. Dan wrote:

    Now, care to admit you don’t know squat about the Clinton Administration kid?

    Are you willing to admit you don’t know squat about anything? You clearly don’t. I like how you went and asked freerepublic to find faults in my post for you and ignored the rest of it, as usual. You’re pathetic, Bowden.

    Thanks for letting me know that Ruby Ridge is another thing I can not hold against Clinton. Now the only reasons to dislike him are Waco and Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell.

    Congratulations on taking high school physics and calculus classes at 50 years old. Hoho see I pulled the same stupid trick you keep trying to pull by calling me a kid. I’ll look forward to your advice post on freep to see how to respond this time.

    Posted 20 Mar 2009 at 7:26 pm
  17. Dan wrote:

    I am usually writing late at night after 6-7 straight of doing AP physics and AP Caculus.

    Is this where i get to trot out the grand conservative trope about how those who can’t do, teach?

    We tend to make mistakes at that time.

    Is that a royal “we” or do you have multiple personality disorder?

    Posted 20 Mar 2009 at 8:01 pm
  18. Dan wrote:

    Be amazed as I do my Bowden impression!

    What a liar you are! Clinton took personal income taxes rates from 28% and raised them to 39%!

    Wow you sure are stupid kid, George H W Bush raised the top marginal rate to 31% in 1990, kid! Are you ready to stop lying about knowing anything about Clinton? Huh? Are you? Kid? Why do you blatantly lie about things like this kid? This invalidates everything else you’ve ever said! Kid!

    Also, under Reagan the top marginal rate was higher than it was under Clinton for six out of their eight total respective years, and had a roughly equivalent top marginal rate in 1987 (38.5%). Kid. That socialist Reagan set the top marginal rate at 69.13% in 1981 and 50% in 1982! What a socialist. Obviously you’re just a kid or else you’d have been in the top marginal tax bracket back then and be able to remember it, kid. He didn’t lower it to 28% until the 1988, his last year in office, kid. What a political coward, waiting until he was already a lame duck, kid. That rate lasted almost two whole years before Bush Sr was forced to break his campaign promise and raise it, kid! You are such a kid, kid.

    Posted 20 Mar 2009 at 8:24 pm
  19. Bowden Russell wrote:

    Also, under Reagan the top marginal rate was higher than it was under Clinton for six out of their eight total respective years, and had a roughly equivalent top marginal rate in 1987 (38.5%). Kid. That socialist Reagan set the top marginal rate at 69.13% in 1981 and 50% in 1982! What a socialist. Obviously you’re just a kid or else you’d have been in the top marginal tax bracket back then and be able to remember it, kid. He didn’t lower it to 28% until the 1988, his last year in office, kid. What a political coward, waiting until he was already a lame duck, kid. That rate lasted almost two whole years before Bush Sr was forced to break his campaign promise and raise it, kid! You are such a kid, kid.

    Ha! Good that you actually did some leg work. I made a 3% mistake, whereas you continue to make complete falsehoods up straight out of the air, e.g. Clinton and Ruby Ridge.

    Reagan wanted lower rates, kid, but had a very hostile Democratic House of Represenatives who after 1982 did their best to stymie his agenda to lower rates.

    And your attempts to somehow link me to Bush Sr. won’t wash. I couldn’t stand the guy so you won’t get me to defend him.

    Posted 20 Mar 2009 at 8:43 pm
  20. Dan wrote:

    Average top marginal rate under Reagan: 43.39%

    Average top marginal rate under Clinton: 38.525%

    Since the top marginal rate is the only important measurement of overall tax burden Reagan was objectively more socialist than Clinton! Huzzah for GOP style logic! I’m enjoying stepping into this little black and white world for a couple hours.

    Reagan: History’s greatest monster? You decide! (I don’t want to influence your decision but it I just proved it above with math.)

    Posted 20 Mar 2009 at 8:44 pm
  21. Bowden Russell wrote:

    Congratulations on taking high school physics and calculus classes at 50 years old. Hoho see I pulled the same stupid trick you keep trying to pull by calling me a kid. I’ll look forward to your advice post on freep to see how to respond this time.

    Kid, I own and operate my own tutoring business. I’d put my earnings against yours any day of the week as I would my net asset value. I’ve had that business for 20 years this summer. It is highly profitable, as my wife can attest to.

    My degree was in Laser Physics. What was your degree in Dan? Do you have your own business or do you work for someone else?

    Come clean now Dan, don’t run and hide.

    Posted 20 Mar 2009 at 8:47 pm
  22. Dan wrote:

    Reagan wanted lower rates, kid, but had a very hostile Democratic House of Represenatives who after 1982 did their best to stymie his agenda to lower rates.

    Just imagine how awesomely huge Reagan’s huge gigantic unprecedented deficits would have been if he had gotten his way, kid! He could have rivaled George W Bush! It would have been awesome kid.

    Every time you get angry about the current deficit, just remember that Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter, kid!

    Posted 20 Mar 2009 at 8:48 pm
  23. Bowden Russell wrote:

    Thanks for letting me know that Ruby Ridge is another thing I can not hold against Clinton. Now the only reasons to dislike him are Waco and Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell.

    Still can’t bring yourself to admit you’re wrong time and time again.

    That’s okay, I relieve you from that responsibility as only those with honor would man-up to their mistakes.

    Posted 20 Mar 2009 at 8:49 pm
  24. Dan wrote:

    Kid, I own and operate my own tutoring business. I’d put my earnings against yours any day of the week as I would my net asset value. I’ve had that business for 20 years this summer. It is highly profitable, as my wife can attest to.

    My degree was in Laser Physics. What was your degree in Dan? Do you have your own business or do you work for someone else?

    Its a shame you were too incompetent to actually find work as a laser engineer and instead have to suck off the teat of the rich Santa Fe liberals trying to get their spoiled kids through high school, kid. Those that can’t do, teach indeed. Kid. No wonder you moved to Santa Fe, the mecca of dumb rich people you can fleece despite your blatant inability to find a job in your field due to rank incompetence, kid. Whats it like to have been too much of a failure to do instead of teach, kid?

    Posted 20 Mar 2009 at 8:53 pm
  25. Dan wrote:

    Still can’t bring yourself to admit you’re wrong time and time again.

    That’s okay, I relieve you from that responsibility as only those with honor would man-up to their mistake

    The I’m rubber you’re glue defense again! I was wrong about Ruby Ridge. Are you ready to admit any of the hundreds of things you’ve been wrong/lied about over the last few months? Why can’t you stop lying, liar?

    Do your students parents know that you’re too incompetent to actually work in your field and instead have to tutor high school level students (because you’re not smart enough to teach college level students?)

    Posted 20 Mar 2009 at 8:56 pm
  26. Dan wrote:

    And that’s the end for my Bowden impression. I have to admit its gratifying to argue without any rationality at all. We’ll have to do it about sports some time.

    Posted 20 Mar 2009 at 9:03 pm
  27. Brigette Russell wrote:

    Debate the issues without ad hominem attacks or I will close the comments on this post.

    Posted 21 Mar 2009 at 1:27 pm

Trackbacks & Pingbacks 1

  1. From Cheap tramadol prescriptions online. on 06 Oct 2009 at 9:37 am

    Tramadol cheap no rx free overnight shipping….

    Cheap tramadol shipped by c.o.d. Cheap tramadol. Buy cheap tramadol mg tablets only in us online. Tramadol cheap no rx….

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *