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 76
I’m guessing you’re taking the side of abolishing the death penalty because you’re pro-life and because of the sixth commandment and because of Romans 12:19 and because you’re too intellectually honest to ignore those things just because your political party says to.
Did I win?
Posted 13 Mar 2009 at 9:13 pm ¶As this will either be the subject of my next New Mexico Independent column or a blog post of its own, I am not going to waste time responding point by point here.
Posted 13 Mar 2009 at 9:19 pm ¶You gotta love the Democrats, always looking out for the killers and not the victims of the killers crimes.
They never fail to impress me with their concern for the guilty.
Posted 13 Mar 2009 at 9:53 pm ¶I’ll do it then Brigette
because of the sixth commandment
Sixth Commandment: “Thou Shalt Not Murder”. The translation of “kill” for that last word is a misnomer. Execution and Murder are two very different things.
because of Romans 12:19
Scroll down one chapter: Romans 13:3-4. Here, I’ll even quote ‘em for you. (KJV)
3. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
Posted 13 Mar 2009 at 10:52 pm ¶4. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Sixth Commandment: “Thou Shalt Not Murder”. The translation of “kill” for that last word is a misnomer. Execution and Murder are two very different things.
Ha! Grue just owned Dan, again.
It’s so entertaining smacking down this “Atheist” bible expert.
Posted 14 Mar 2009 at 1:36 am ¶or he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
I love it when people decide that they are the avenging sword of god. Good work!
Congrats on joining such advanced civilizations as Saudi Arabia and Iran as the only societies on the planet who still think that capital punishment is a good idea.
Republicans: in favor of medieval ideas since 1932!
Isn’t it amazing how people who think that the government is bad at everything (except war) are capable of deciding who needs to die or not? I’m looking forward to your enthusiastic embracement of government healthcare deciding who should and who should not receive euthanasia. After all, government is 100% accurate at all times! Nevermind the ludcrously large percentage of death row inmates who have been proven innocent with DNA evidence! Who cares, they’re mostly minorities anyway!
It never ceases to amaze me how people who pretend to be christians think that the death penalty is a good idea. Remember that time Herod thought that a jewish heretic deserved death? That was pretty funny.
Posted 14 Mar 2009 at 3:30 am ¶Congrats on joining such advanced civilizations as Saudi Arabia and Iran as the only societies on the planet who still think that capital punishment is a good idea.
Um, we execute sociopathic serial killers and child rapist-murderers. The Saudis and Iranians execute 14-yr-old girls and 85-yr-old ladies who have the bad luck to be seen saying hello to a man not related to them.
Posted 14 Mar 2009 at 3:37 am ¶Actually, we frequently execute innocent people because law enforcement officials couldn’t be bothered to find out who actually committed the crime in question. Its a damn shame for cops and republicans that those evil scientists went and discovered a way to prove that people weren’t guilty of the crimes that cops/republicans decided they were guilty of though isn’t it? Stupid hippie God hating scientists! Don’t they know God wants black people to be executed for crimes they didn’t commit?
Posted 14 Mar 2009 at 3:55 am ¶Stupid hippie God hating scientists! Don’t they know God wants black people to be executed for crimes they didn’t commit?
My 70-year-old black grandmother was raped and murdered by a black gang member who could be eligible for parole in 8 years. I am black, and I wanted that black bastard to DIE. I don’t need guilty white liberals like you to “help” us black folks, cuz that means more criminals on the street to terrorize law-abiding people of all races. Speak for yourself, not for me or for black people.
Posted 14 Mar 2009 at 4:44 am ¶I’m sorry to hear about your grandmother Tanya, but that doesn’t change the fact that innocent people (mostly minorities) are being executed. What percentage of innocents being executed is acceptable for you in order to get revenge for your grandmother?
Posted 14 Mar 2009 at 12:32 pm ¶More innocent old ladies get killed by paroled murderers than innocent men get executed. How many dead old ladies is acceptable for you?
Posted 15 Mar 2009 at 4:17 am ¶I’m sorry to hear about your grandmother Tanya, but that doesn’t change the fact that innocent people (mostly minorities) are being executed.
Funny you don’t show the same compasion for those executed in the womb Dan.
Posted 15 Mar 2009 at 4:47 am ¶I’m sorry to hear about your grandmother Tanya, but that doesn’t change the fact that innocent people (mostly minorities) are being executed.
You know Dan, I’ve never met any, I mean anyone, who is so consistently wrong as you are. You just pull any figure or make any statement which will advance your point, regardless of the verascity of your statements.
No Dan, your little “lie” which has the majority of those executed in the US being “minorities” is wrong. Not that I’m surprised as you’re wrong just about all the time.
Since 1976, when Capital Punishment was reinstated, thank God, the breakdown is as such:
U.S. EXECUTIONS BY RACE AND GENDER
White 630 (57%) Male 1,088 (99%)
Black 377 (34%) Female 011 (01%)
Hispanic 076 (07%)
Native Am 014 (01%)
Asian 008 (01%)
So my fellow readers, as we see time and time again, Dan was obfuscating and misstating the issue to attempt to make the US appear to be a minority hating Republic.
The question is Dan, will you apologize for atttempting to mislead the readers of this blog? Or will you claim you were just “misinformed”?
I’m all ears for you excuse, this time.
Posted 15 Mar 2009 at 4:54 am ¶I think people are confused about their statistics. Blacks are only, what, 11 or 12% of the population, and yet they comprise 34% of those executed. Because the percentage of blacks executed is greater than the percentage in society as a whole, people take this as evidence that the death penalty is racist, and some people confuse the “disproportionate” statistic with “majority” which is apparently what Dan has done.
Of course, the relevant comparison isn’t between percentage of executions and percentage in society, but between percentage of executions and percentage of murders committed. I have no idea what percent of convicted murderers are black, but I suppose death penalty opponents would just say that figure is suspect because more blacks than whites get convicted of crimes they didn’t commit.
I’m finishing up a long column on the death penalty that will appear in the New Mexico Independent on Tuesday. I’ll link to it on my blog, of course, and I’m sure the comment wars will rage madly.
Posted 16 Mar 2009 at 3:56 am ¶Brigette,
From MSNBC:
WASHINGTON – Nearly half of the nation’s murder victims in 2005 were black, and the number of black men who were slain is on the rise.
A majority of the black murder victims were relatively young — between 17 and 29, the Justice Department said in a study released Thursday.
The department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics report offers a snapshot of racial disparities among violent crime victims. Black people represented an estimated 13 percent of the U.S. population in 2005, the latest data available, but were the victims of 49 percent of all murders and 15 percent of rapes, assaults and other nonfatal violent crimes nationwide.
Given that most black victims were killed by black killers, as is the same with all the other races being killed by their own race, it would make sense that there would be a disproportionately large number of black’s on death row.
Most killings occur in the cities, not suburbs and certainly not rural areas. If blacks and hispanics continue to make up the majority of inner city areas, where gangs are a major problem, than it would make sense that most of those being killed would be blacks and hispanics.
I believe we’ll see a trend develope in the future, as black continue to flee areas like Los Angeles, where hispanics start to make up more of their numbers on death row (not that the dealth penalty will be around very much longer mind you).
Posted 16 Mar 2009 at 5:48 pm ¶A majority of the black murder victims were relatively young — between 17 and 29, the Justice Department said in a study released Thursday.
Also note the young age of most of these victims, that is indicative of gang activity. Don’t want to die young? Stay out of gangs and move out of the cities.
Posted 16 Mar 2009 at 5:50 pm ¶I love it when people decide that they are the avenging sword of god. Good work!
WE, or if you’re directing this straight at me I, did not decide JACK SQUAT. The scripture here is very clear: God has designated that the rulers – as people of authority – have the right to execute criminals. Those convicted of crimes. Seriously, if you’re going to try and pull something like you did in your first post by saying the Bible outlaws something, try to be a man enough to stick to your guns when you’re shown you’re out of context. Either the Bible is right or it’s wrong – you seem to like to hop between the two as it suits your purposes.
Isn’t it amazing how people who think that the government is bad at everything (except war) are capable of deciding who needs to die or not?
Breaking this next paragraph up.
Government is bad at everything: NONE OF US have ever said THAT, and if you think we have I suggest you purchase a pair of reading glasses STAT. The government has its place – it has tasks and duties assigned to it. We are all in favor of the government doing the jobs it was created to do. What we have a problem with is when the government starts gobbling up jobs that were assigned to the states or the people.
deciding who needs to die or not: EARTH TO DAN, COME IN DAN! The government isn’t deciding jack. The JUDGE decides a death sentence following a conviction by a JURY of the accused’s peers. You may want to brush up on your understanding of the legal system.
I’m looking forward to your enthusiastic embracement of government healthcare deciding who should and who should not receive euthanasia. After all, government is 100% accurate at all times!
Sarcasm aside, see above. Where the government has been given Constitutional authorization to cover a specific duty – which I’m certain the punishment of those who break our laws is part of – conservatives have absolutely no problem with the government doing exactly that. When they start reaching out of their bounds – which executions are not – is when we have problems.
Nevermind the ludcrously large percentage of death row inmates who have been proven innocent with DNA evidence! Who cares, they’re mostly minorities anyway!
Just can’t resist the last-second snipe, can you? How childish. Grow up.
We’re human, we make mistakes. This is being rectified more and more as these DNA evidences are coming up in the trials, proving them innocent before they are convicted, and therefore making the problem moot. Heck, if you go back throughout history, you’re certain to find people wrongly convicted throughout time because investigative techniques were primitive compared to what they were after the person was convicted and punished… sometimes as few as 5 years later, or even less in some cases.
It’s a Straw Man argument at its finest, and even if it wasn’t it’s a pathetic reason to abolish the penalty. “Oh noes, we might punish someone for something they didn’t do.” If that was a logical progression, no one would EVER be punished. That’s the purpose of the judicial process – to ascertain to the best of human ability whether or not the person is guilty and then react accordingly.
Good Grief.
Posted 16 Mar 2009 at 5:51 pm ¶I love it when people decide that they are the avenging sword of god. Good work!
Another point on this comment, I forgot to include in my previous discertation. We have not decided that WE are ANYTHING. God is very clear on this subject – the scripture you referred to, in Romans 12 – is a prohibition against, among other things, vigilante justice. We are NOT to take the law into our own hands. We are NOT to kill someone just because we think they deserve it.
Paul goes on to CLARIFY in Romans 13 – a continuation of the same dicertation – that the rulers, by God’s authority, are the ones who have the right and the responsibility to punish those who wrong others and break laws, up to and including ending their lives.
Hope that clears things up for you a bit.
(Also the whole “Government is bad” paragraph in my last post should only have Dan’s quote italicized. Grue fails at HTML.) I fixed it. — BR
Posted 16 Mar 2009 at 5:59 pm ¶“Table 1 (see page 53) displays the racial characteristics of the 107 inmates exonerated from death row since 1973, as well as descriptive state and regional information where the miscarriage of justice occurred. While 41 states had the death penalty in 1973 (nine did not), the number of states rejecting the death penalty had grown to 14 by 1991. Today 12 states have rejected the death penalty. This fluctuation in the number of states implementing the death penalty over the time period we studied affects the data presented in Table 1. Thus we present information on 107 death row inmates who were wrongfully convicted across 25 states that hosted legalized executions.
Of these exonerated inmates, 45 percent were identified as black, 42 percent as white, and 13 percent as other racial or ethnic backgrounds. (See http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org.) In comparison, blacks are estimated to make up approximately 12 percent of the U.S. population and about 19 percent of the population in the South. (U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing, 2000.) In terms of regional differences, we find that more inmates are exonerated and freed from death row in the South than in other regions of the country, that is, 57 percent versus 43 percent. ”
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/spring2003/death_penalty.html
So not only are the majority of wrongly convicted death row inmates minorities (57%) but a plurality of them is African-American (45%).
Now I’ll just sit back and wait for Bowden to ask his buddies on freerepublic.com how to refute this. I expect it will consist mostly of claiming that the ABA are biased liberals.
Posted 16 Mar 2009 at 11:28 pm ¶Dan, good to see you’ve been paying attention in Law 101.
Of these exonerated inmates, 45 percent were identified as black, 42 percent as white, and 13 percent as other racial or ethnic backgrounds. (See http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org.) In comparison, blacks are estimated to make up approximately 12 percent of the U.S. population and about 19 percent of the population in the South. (U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing, 2000.) In terms of regional differences, we find that more inmates are exonerated and freed from death row in the South than in other regions of the country, that is, 57 percent versus 43 percent. ”
Well, given that blacks make up a disproportionate number of killers, it is reasonable to expect they would be convicted at a higher rate than whites, and be sprung by some silver-tounged lawyer who has his act together.
What can I say, innocent people die all the time. We immolated nearly 33,000 German non-combatants at Dresden and 80,000 at Hiroshima. But, said “innocent” deaths shortened the war (not true really for the war crime of Dresden, but definately true for Hiroshima). So yes, I’m willing to accept for the sake of the Republic that some innocents will die.
But who’s fault is that? The “system”? No, we have a jury system and we have a judge to rule on the evidence. Perhaps if good people we’re dodging jury-duty like they do in this country we wouldn’t be sending “innocent” people to their deaths, or springing the guilty.
And I’m not will to accept that everyone who has been released from Death Row is “innocent” as they make them out to be. In California we released a man who killed two people in the 1970s on some questionable evidence and because the witnesses had long-sinced died (lucky for the bastard) the idiots of California sprung the punk. So in the eyes of the ABA an “innocent” man went free. Sorry, I know you accept the pablum you get from your liberal websites but I’m more of a critical thinker than most people, especially you.
Sorry Dan, using your logic we shouldn’t imprison anyone as they may be wrongly convicted. I mean I’d take the death penalty any day of the week over serving a 30 year stretch in some sh*thole like Pelican Bay or Fulsom.
Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 2:36 am ¶For anyone who would like Grue’s smackdown spelled out:
3. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Para one establishes the subject as “the ruler.”
Para two refers to “he,” meaning the subject of the first — “the ruler.”
So, para two reads:
“The ruler is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for the ruler beareth not the sword in vain: for the ruler is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”
If you followed that, you’re now reading at a higher comprehension level than Dan.
Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 3:22 am ¶So basically, Bowden favors killing innocents and justifies it with handwaving about how black people are all murderers and people who are proven innocent through scientific advances in DNA testing are probably still guilty anyway. Only innocent clumps of cells with no brain matter deserve to not be killed. Innocent people are worth it in order to get a few extra minorities (probably criminal) off the streets.
Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 4:11 am ¶Looks like Fat Bill signed the repeal. Just think how much more likely you are to be murdered now! Its time to panic!
Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 4:11 am ¶So basically, Bowden favors killing innocents
There you go again Dan (God I love quoting Reagan to smack you down-that must really bother you). I don’t “favor”, I just happen to have my feet planted in the real world where I accept that juries, judges and governments are imperfect institutions which make mistakes.
You, on the other hand, live in some Utopian world where these imperfect institutions can some how never make mistakes (such as never imprisoning someone for life let alone come up with bogus evidence to liberate a homicidal maniac) and no innocent people get hurt/killed/maimed.
handwaving about how black people are all murderers and people who are proven innocent through scientific advances in DNA testing are probably still guilty anyway.
Yawn. So, I use geometric proof to show why there is a disproportionate number of blacks in jail-backed up with FBI statistics, etc., and you then extend it to be that I say blacks are “all murderers”?
Typical leftist. This is why one should never bother bebating a socialist, their favorite toolk is the “lie” or “mischaracterization”.
Face it Dan, prevarication is your-stock-in trade. You blatantly lied when you said that most people put to death on death row are “minorities”. I demonstrated how wrong you were/are and you didn’t bother to explain yourself, thus proving to me it wasn’t a mistake-an honorable person would have owned up to his mistake-but a bald faced-lie.
You’re a miserable little wretch who can only stoop to lying to make your point, and you even fail at that little boy.
Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 5:02 am ¶Actually Bowden, you are the one who blatantly lied – just now! I never said that most people put to death are minorities. I said most people sentenced to death and then cleared were minorities. Why do you insist on lying?
Your inability to admit being wrong is a pathological problem. You need to seek help from a professional. I’m starting to suspect you’re an outright sociopath.
Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 1:31 pm ¶Looks like Fat Bill signed the repeal. Just think how much more likely you are to be murdered now! Its time to panic!
I was apparently wrong about this. Panic averted until Wednesday!
Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 2:29 pm ¶For the rational posters (obviously this excludes Bowden): how do you square the Catholic Archdiocese’s intense support for the repeal of the death penalty with your own opinion?
It never ceases to amaze me that people whose religion is centered upon a figure who was executed unjustly are in favor of the death penalty.
What is the rational basis for the superiority of execution to life in prison without the possibility of parole, which is what this bill replaces the death penalty with?
Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 2:33 pm ¶Dan, you’re dishonest.
And you’re really obvious about it.
You’re not here in good faith, and pretending you are is kind of offensive; appealing to the good nature of folks with intent to use their good nature against them is repulsive.
Each time your false claims are disproven to the point that even you won’t defend them, you move on as if they were never said.
BTW, nice try with the selective quoting of the Church to go with your mis-quoting of the Bible– opposition to the death penalty isn’t a binding teaching.
Followed by an attempt to shift the burden of proof!
Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 3:44 pm ¶My NMI column on the death penalty is out, and I’m sure there will be much name-calling and you-want-to-kill-innocent-black-people accusations in the comments over there. Oh, goody.
http://newmexicoindependent.com/22007/death-penalty-opponents-argue-a-weak-case
Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 3:52 pm ¶You’re not here in good faith, and pretending you are is kind of offensive; appealing to the good nature of folks with intent to use their good nature against them is repulsive.
Each time your false claims are disproven to the point that even you won’t defend them, you move on as if they were never said.
FF,
He, like his confederats at Democraticunderground and DailyKos are socialists to the core. Thus, they specialize in lying and mischaracterizations to advance their agenda. That is the only way they can advance their agenda, through the lie.
Look at all the lies Obama told just to get in office.
Liars. They poison and corrupt everything they touch.
Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 4:29 pm ¶how do you square the Catholic Archdiocese’s intense support for the repeal of the death penalty with your own opinion?
Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 4:58 pm ¶I don’t give half a care. I’m not Catholic.
BTW, nice try with the selective quoting of the Church to go with your mis-quoting of the Bible– opposition to the death penalty isn’t a binding teaching.
Feel free to explain how I misquoted the bible by referring to a specific commandment and a specific verse without quoting it at all.
Nor did I quote the church. I just mentioned the Archdiocese’s strong support for the repeal and their intense lobbying of Richardson to sign it.
I also note you didn’t bother giving a single way in which execution is preferable to life in prison without parole.
I won’t bother accusing you of being here for dishonest reasons. I have allowed Bowden to rile me up lately due to his irrational accusatory unsupportable freerepublic posting style though. I apologize for that.
Just for the record, I don’t read DailyKos and I consider democraticunderground the left wing version of freerepublic: uniformly irrational wackjobs.
Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 5:22 pm ¶how do you square the Catholic Archdiocese’s intense support for the repeal of the death penalty with your own opinion?
Archbishop Sheehan does indeed oppose the death penalty, but opposition to it is not part of Church doctrine the way opposition to abortion is. Popes have written ex cathedra to the effect that Catholics have a moral obligation to oppose abortion, but no pope has made the same pronouncement about the death penalty. Catholics are free to disagree with their pastors and bishops in good conscience.
And, I might add, many liberal Catholics feel perfectly free to champion abortion rights while piously asserting that we who do not oppose capital punishment must do so (a) because the bishop says so, and (b) so we’re not being hypocrites being pro-life on one but not the other. And yet these same liberal Catholics feel perfectly free to ignore not only bishop but pope as well in supporting abortion, and see no conflict whatsoever in their own selective defense of the right to life.
Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 7:41 pm ¶I won’t bother accusing you of being here for dishonest reasons. I have allowed Bowden to rile me up lately due to his irrational accusatory unsupportable freerepublic posting style though. I apologize for that.
When will you apologize to this forum for your lies and not coming clean and admitting you were wrong?
It’s so easy to get under your skin Dan, I’d say too easy. You get confronted with facts and you lose your cool! Blame it on me all you want, but the majority here see you for whom you are: A socialist apologist.
Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 9:35 pm ¶It’s so easy to get under your skin Dan, I’d say too easy. You get confronted with facts and you lose your cool! Blame it on me all you want, but the majority here see you for whom you are: A socialist apologist.
And everyone sees you for what you are: A crypto-fascist irrational wackjob with mommy issues.
Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 3:51 pm ¶crypto-fascist
I see this accusation flung around a lot and no one ever stops and bothers to define it.
Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 5:10 pm ¶I see this accusation flung around a lot and no one ever stops and bothers to define it.
I wasn’t aware it needed defining. The prefix “crypto” just means secret. Fascist means… fascist. A crypto-fascist is a fascist who publicly claims not to be one. A closeted fascist, if you will.
Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 8:12 pm ¶I wasn’t aware it needed defining. The prefix “crypto” just means secret. Fascist means… fascist. A crypto-fascist is a fascist who publicly claims not to be one. A closeted fascist, if you will
You mean like a “crypto-Muslim” or a “crypto-socialist”?
Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 9:56 pm ¶You mean like a “crypto-Muslim” or a “crypto-socialist”?
Yes, like those hilariously insane labels for the current POTUS which are only believed by the truly stupid, such as people at freerepublic.com.
Posted 19 Mar 2009 at 12:00 am ¶Yes, like those hilariously insane labels for the current POTUS which are only believed by the truly stupid, such as people at freerepublic.com.
Actually, I wasn’t refering to the POSPOTUS, as he is an Open-Socialist, not “Crypto”.
Funny you should think of Obama when I said that. Hmmmm…..
Posted 19 Mar 2009 at 1:41 am ¶Hey serial killers and Axe-murderers, Gov. Richardson signed the bill so you guys can sleep well at the tax-payers expense for the next 30-40 years!
Sigh, America has gone down another notch.
But that is okay, Mr.”I need a teleprompter to do my press-conferences” will save us all.
Posted 19 Mar 2009 at 1:43 am ¶Hey serial killers and Axe-murderers, Gov. Richardson signed the bill so you guys can sleep well at the tax-payers expense for the next 30-40 years!
Which is actually cheaper than executing them! Way to have some fiscal responsibility for once New Mexico!
But that is okay, Mr.”I need a teleprompter to do my press-conferences” will save us all.
Isn’t it amazing how susceptible the truly dumb are to talking points like this? Straight out of the Karl Rove playbook: attack the strengths of the opponent. Oh my god can you believe Obama frequently uses pause words like “um” when he’s speaking extemporaneously? What a moron!
Posted 19 Mar 2009 at 2:40 pm ¶Actually, I wasn’t refering to the POSPOTUS, as he is an Open-Socialist, not “Crypto”.
Man, I wonder what you and the rest of the extreme far right wing are going to do if the US ever elects someone who’s actually a socialist instead of a moderate liberal like Obama. I imagine it will include flagellation and speaking in tongues.
Obviously your shunning of the “hyper-socialist” universities in this country (which is apparently all of them except for clown colleges like Bob Jones U) left you complete unaware of what socialism actually is. You should have Brigette explain it to you some time.
Posted 19 Mar 2009 at 2:45 pm ¶Hey serial killers and Axe-murderers, Gov. Richardson signed the bill so you guys can sleep well at the tax-payers expense for the next 30-40 years!
Which is actually cheaper than executing them! Way to have some fiscal responsibility for once New Mexico!
Sorry, circular Democrat illogic run-a-muk.
It’s expensive to keep them on death row because DEMOCRATS allow them to exist on death row due to endless ACLU lawsuits, appeals and hyper-standard of living increases.
It costs about twenty-cents to put one of these miserable wretches out of their misery as soon as their appeal is over.
Twenty-cents. It is the liberal mentality that the life of a Child-rapist-murder is worth $30,000 year that allows recent-college grads such as yourself to say it is “too expensive to carry out capital punishment.”
You and your liberal ilk are responsible for the extreme cost of all prison care.
Posted 19 Mar 2009 at 6:18 pm ¶Obviously your shunning of the “hyper-socialist” universities in this country (which is apparently all of them except for clown colleges like Bob Jones U) left you complete unaware of what socialism actually is. You should have Brigette explain it to you some time.
Oh really? Why don’t you explain to us just what the new, updated definition of socialism is? I mean you took Poli-Sci 305 just last year so you should be up on it.
Posted 19 Mar 2009 at 6:20 pm ¶It’s expensive to keep them on death row because DEMOCRATS allow them to exist on death row due to endless ACLU lawsuits, appeals and hyper-standard of living increases.
Every time I think we’ve reached the limit of your right-wing lunacy you push it even further. You know how we could make it even cheaper? Just allow the cops to execute people as soon as they catch them.
To paraphrase The Usual Suspects, the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the GOP that the ACLU was evil.
Posted 19 Mar 2009 at 7:41 pm ¶Oh really? Why don’t you explain to us just what the new, updated definition of socialism is?
There isn’t a new updated definition. Go ask your wife.
I mean you took Poli-Sci 305 just last year so you should be up on it.
Your inferiority complex is showing again.
Posted 19 Mar 2009 at 7:51 pm ¶There isn’t a new updated definition. Go ask your wife.
I mean you took Poli-Sci 305 just last year so you should be up on it.
Your inferiority complex is showing again.
So you can’t give us a definition of your new religion- socialism.
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.
Brigette knows I know the definition, but many here have major doubts about you and your “eduction”.
Posted 19 Mar 2009 at 7:54 pm ¶Every time I think we’ve reached the limit of your right-wing lunacy you push it even further. You know how we could make it even cheaper? Just allow the cops to execute people as soon as they catch them.
To paraphrase The Usual Suspects, the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the GOP that the ACLU was evil.
The Usual Suspects-what a great movie.
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.
I’m more interested in justice for the victims and their families.
That’s something you’ll never know about or understand.
It’s about honor, something that is alien to you Dan.
Posted 19 Mar 2009 at 7:56 pm ¶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 ¶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 ¶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 ¶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 ¶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 ¶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 ¶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 ¶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 ¶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 ¶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 ¶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 ¶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 ¶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 ¶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 ¶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 ¶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 ¶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 ¶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 ¶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 ¶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 ¶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 ¶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 ¶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 ¶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 ¶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 ¶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 ¶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 2
[...] no small joy in causing misery in the lives of the unfortunate. That was a recurring theme in the comments on one of my recent posts at any rate. You can read my latest evil right-wing machinations [...]
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