Quotes of the day

posted at 10:05 pm on December 30, 2011 by Allahpundit

“‘Oh, I’d probably have trouble,’ Paul said to a question of supporting Gingrich’s candidacy, adding that he wouldn’t be able to support the nominee in general if the ‘policies of the Republican Party are the same as the Democrat Party.’…

“‘I’m gonna come in, I think, first or second,’ Paul said today in an interview airing this weekend on Bloomberg Television’s ‘Political Capital with Al Hunt.’ ‘If I did come in fifth or sixth, that would be a real shocker.’…

“Romney would be the least objectionable of his party’s potential nominees, Paul said in the interview, yet he wouldn’t commit to supporting him as the 2012 Republican candidate and refused to rule out a third-party run.

“‘I think he probably understands how the market works as a businessman a little bit better than a guy like Gingrich,’ Paul said of Romney.”

***

“Based on discussion with a dozen supporters at candidate events across the state — including a Paul rally of about 500 here Wednesday night – the Paul Posse contains a considerable ‘Ron or I’m Gone’ population.

“Of those people interviewed, three said they would vote for the Republican nominee if it was not Mr. Paul, and two said they were not sure. But seven respondents said they would support only Mr. Paul in the general election – either as a write-in or a third-party candidate (the latter of which Mr. Paul has not ruled out). Ideally, they said, he would be the Republican nominee…

“‘I would not vote for anyone else,’ said Eric Grote, who travelled to Iowa from Turkey, where he lives half the year, to attend Mr. Paul’s rally in Des Moines. He wore a big Tea Party button. ‘All the other candidates, Democrat or Republican, are reading from the same sheet of music,’ he said.”

***

“The central thesis of Paul’s stump speech is that the government’s singular role is to protect our liberties. And part of true liberty, Paul believes, is making personal choices without interference from the federal government. In every speech Paul reaches a moment in which he relays that We don’t have to agree on everything: people should have their own religion, their own intellectual pursuits and the right to live their private lives however they see fit. That last part strikes some as a tacit acceptance of liberal positions on social issues like abortion and gay marriage—and on some level it is. While Paul himself would support state bans for such things, his stay-out-of-people’s-business philosophy is absolute at the federal level. ‘I like that he’s for less governmental involvement in our lives,’ said Erin Nevius, a 24-year-old who classifies herself as independent and attended a Paul town hall on Thursday. ‘For being a Republican, I think he has some pretty liberal ideas.’

“Couple that with Paul’s support for the Occupy movement–its spirit, not its preferred tax policy–and you have a liberal-friendly message. ‘Wealth is being accumulated into smaller and smaller hands,’ he said on Thursday. ‘Right now, big business makes more money paying high-paid lobbyists going to Washington to get a good deal than trying to satisfy you, the customer. And that needs to be reversed.’ Paul’s message focuses on the weak economy, a grievance pretty much everyone can get behind. There is always the possibility that liberal voters will realize how conservative he is on issues like taxation, entitlements or abortion, but Paul’s libertarianism acts as a buffer. And that could make all the difference when voters caucus Tuesday night across Iowa.”

***

“Mr. Paul should be given credit for his efforts to promote these ideas and other libertarian policies, all of which would make America better off. He’d be the first to admit he’s not the most erudite candidate to make the case, but surely part of his appeal is his very genuine persona.

“Which is not to say that Mr. Paul is always in sync with mainstream libertarians. His seeming indifference to attempts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, his support for a constitutional amendment to deny birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens, and his opposition to the Nafta and Cafta free trade agreements in the name of doctrinal purity are at odds with most libertarians…

“Support for dynamic market capitalism (as opposed to crony capitalism), social tolerance, and a healthy skepticism of foreign military adventurism is a combination of views held by a plurality of Americans. It is why the 21st century is likely to be a libertarian century. It is why the focus should be on Ron Paul’s philosophy and his policy proposals in 2012.”

***

“Rep. Ron Paul is most associated with his economic and foreign policy views, but one of the secrets to his success is the appeal he’s making to Iowa’s socially conservative electorate, something that may come as a surprise to those who know him as a gadfly libertarian.

“On table outside a Paul town hall meeting in a public library here, attendees were offered fliers promoting Ron Paul as a ‘pro-life champion’ and somebody who would ‘defend traditional marriage.’ None of the materials mentioned anything about foreign policy, unless you count the linguine recipe in the ‘Ron Paul Family Cook Book.’…

“And one of the advantages of having been dismissed as a crank who couldn’t win the caucuses is that it has allowed Paul to skate under the radar and make it easier to thread the needle between his appeal to libertarians and to social conservatives. Had he been taken seriously as a front-runner earlier in the process, he’d probably be subject to negative ads informing conservatives that Paul does support the right of individual states to allow gay marriage. Instead, the lower profile has allowed him to quietly make his case to social conservatives, and expand his base beyond libertarians.”

***

“But looking at the primary season merely through the lens of winners and losers misses an essential point about Ron Paul, I think. Winning the GOP nomination (and maybe even the presidency!) may be this year’s goal, but the ultimate, oft-stated purpose to Paul’s 35+ years in public life has been to spread the message of freedom, of constitutionally limited government. Even a losing primary season—say, like Jerry Brown’s underdog role against Bill Clinton in 1992—becomes a prime opportunity for salesmanship. Paul, unlike the rest of the non-Romney field, has the money and stamina for such a fight.

“Another objective, as Silver points out, is that Paul ‘could certainly control a substantial enough minority to become a power broker at the Republican National Convention, something that is an explicit goal of his campaign.’ In my sporadic conversations with Paul insiders, the convention/delegates strategy has come up every time. If they can’t prevail in a brokered convention, the Paulities at least hope to get a prime-time speaking slot, a hand in the platform-writing, and more besides…

“So Ron Paul’s in it for the long haul. Republicans gearing up for a post-Iowa purge festival should be asking themselves one question: Do they really want to alienate the enthusiastic supporters of the only GOP candidate who either talks convincingly about cutting government or appeals noticeably to the non-Republican swing voters who tip most modern elections? The answer to that question may determine the future of the Republican Party.”

***

“But there’s a paradox buried inside Paul’s rise in the Republican field, a time bomb ticking away. Call it the curse of the ‘Paulbots.’

“The more Paul rises, the more he needs to temper his rhetoric and fine-tune his message (especially given the kind of baggage he carries). And the more he needs a fine-tuned message, the more he has to control his fractious fans. But people who organize themselves online today are notoriously hard to control…

“But things are about to get a bit crazy. Paul’s late surge and possible win next week in Iowa are going to generate a huge burst of national media attention and plenty of hard-edged questions about his past and views. And the Paulbot base doesn’t handle criticism very well…

“If the Internet hyper-empowers small groups of people, enabling them to punch above their weight, it also hyper-exposes them. In the coming days, as Paul’s star rises, his online base is going to be tested as much as he is.”

***

“In response to these remarks, Wead pointed to the Constitution. ‘A lot of what Ron Paul says and believes is misrepresented. He believes strongly in the Constitution,’ he said. ‘There’s nothing dangerous about the U.S. Constitution. If we decided we needed to react, as a president he would take it to the U.S. Congress. We’d decide; we’d declare war; we’d win it, and then we’d get out.’”


Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6

I wouldn’t characterize myself as a Paul supporter, but I do think it’s unfair sometimes when people contend that his position on foreign policy is crazy or anti-American. If anything, I think it’s our patriotic duty to point out what we believe to be the mistakes of our government’s foreign policies of the past in an effort to avoid making them again. The question is whether or not those “mistakes” do in fact qualify as actual mistakes. That’s a legitimate question that reasonable people should be free to debate. And in the case of the Shah, I feel Paul has a legitimate point.

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 12:52 AM

True. But, at the same time, you don’t put in place an isolationist policy which guarantees that you will never make the same mistakes again. The resulting new mistakes are far more difficult to resolve — for, without engagement, you have no friends or leverage.

What Paul wants is the ability to have others help us in our adversity, but without any need for a corresponding effort on our part. He will magically provide heating oil in the dead of winter to Detroit, and 100% of the aviation fuel and gasoline our domestic vehicles need to operate, without us making any alliances for same. When we are threatened from far places, he will attempt to project our power into those far places, much as Jimmy Carter did when he rescued the hostages.

It’s a neat world until reality sets in.

unclesmrgol on December 31, 2011 at 2:08 AM

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 2:05 AM

Like I said, there’s a distinct difference between justice and revenge. If we can achieve the same results with life w/o parole, then jumping up to capital punishment is just a desire to seek revenge.

gyrmnix on December 31, 2011 at 2:09 AM

Israel should bring back the DP.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 31, 2011 at 2:06 AM

Why? They don’t need it. I find it fitting that only Eichmann was killed by the DP in Israel. I don’t want to water it down by executing Habib Al Mohammad, too.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 2:09 AM

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 2:07 AM

They murdered a pregnant woman, butchered her for her unborn child, and then murdered her 10 year old daughter and 7 year old son.
THEY SHOULDN’T BE LIVING AT ALL!!

annoyinglittletwerp on December 31, 2011 at 2:09 AM

That’s a problem with the system, not with a lack of capital punishment. Parole boards that are too soft on convicted murderers are a different issue, as is the issue of prisons that fail to maintain a proper level of security.

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 1:55 AM

Isn’t it more a problem with overly sensitive consciences?

We are dealing with the real world and in that world there is a price to be paid if you act or if you refuse to act. If we keep villains alive they will find a way to be villainous. That is the price to be paid for that particular mercy and it is paid by the innocent.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 2:01 AM

And what do you tell people who lost an innocent loved one to our justice system?

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 2:12 AM

The Arabs ganged up on the Jews and got their a$$es handed to them. Like all bullies, the Arabs turned to cowradly attacks. Big brother, USA, came to the Jews aid and no one else would.

If you’re a Paulbot, you don’t care if the Jews are destroyed, I suppose. There is no reason for the Islamic radicals to do what they do except it keeps the Mullahs in power. They don’t care about Palestinians except to be used as pawns.

Vince on December 31, 2011 at 12:43 AM

The United States is in far more dire situation than Israel. Far more. When the smoke finally clears on this madness, we’re going to look to Israel for aid. Yes. I’m serious.

Pitchforker on December 31, 2011 at 2:13 AM

And what do you tell people who lost an innocent loved one to our justice system?

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 2:12 AM

The same thing I would tell them if the escaped convict killed their family.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 2:13 AM

Neither will one locked up for the rest of his life.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 1:44 AM

Yeah, cause nobody ever gets murdered in prison.

BDavis on December 31, 2011 at 2:14 AM

Like I said, there’s a distinct difference between justice and revenge. If we can achieve the same results with life w/o parole, then jumping up to capital punishment is just a desire to seek revenge.

gyrmnix on December 31, 2011 at 2:09 AM

You don’t even make sense. As a matter of fact, what you’re saying are lies.

I said justice is a balance of the scales. You do know that it’s a symbol for justice, don’t you? Well, the balance is met when the one who murdered another loses his own.

I think you’re very intellectually dishonest and you keep on harping about revenge. It’s a weak minded and barbaric ideal you have, thinking that putting someone in prison with all his creature comforts handed to him is some kind of justice for the monstrous crime he committed.

And don’t you put the onus of wanting vengeance on me. At least I have the humanity to see the horror that was experienced by some these victims. You lack all compassion.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 2:15 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on December 31, 2011 at 2:09 AM

These people don’t care. Those dead innocents mean nothing to them. They’re more worried about protecting rapists and murderers than they are about children.

Sick. This is why our society is so screwed up.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 2:17 AM

And what do you tell people who lost an innocent loved one to our justice system?

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 2:12 AM

The same thing I would tell them if the escaped convict killed their family.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 2:13 AM

And they’re supposed to just accept that and move on?

This is interesting to me. So you’re saying that if a murderer goes out and kills an innocent person, that murderer should be put to death. But if our justice system goes and executes an innocent person, everyone involved gets a pass? Is this your position?

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 2:17 AM

Of course not, as that is not humanly possible.

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 1:58 AM

We can’t actually kill them three times, no, but we can get close.

Would be quite a marathon with a guy like Rodney Alcala. Who, btw, is still alive, even though he was originally sentence to death back in 1980. That’s another thing about capital punishment, it’s not very efficient.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 2:18 AM

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 2:17 AM

I made a comment about the use of DNA to convict people, which would lessen the chances of the issue you brought up, but you conveniently ignored it.

Talk about intellectual dishonesty. Your being right is more important to you than protecting the lives of innocent people.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 2:19 AM

So why is Nuremberg different? Because there was no doubt that all involved were guilty. As someone stated above, the evidence was not in dispute. There wasn’t the slightest possibility that any of them were innocent. So I guess you could actually say that if our standards in the U.S. were higher than they are for using the death penalty, I probably wouldn’t even oppose it then. At the moment, though, I can’t say I feel that way.
humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 2:05 AM

If the guilt was not in doubt for a taker of one life, would you be opposed for that particular case?

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 2:20 AM

This is interesting to me. So you’re saying that if a murderer goes out and kills an innocent person, that murderer should be put to death. But if our justice system goes and executes an innocent person, everyone involved gets a pass? Is this your position?

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 2:17 AM

There isn’t a moral equivalence between the two.

Someone who murders another is choosing evil and violating that unsigned social compact.

The state who executes a innocent man did not do so with malice.

How can you see those two as the same?

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 2:21 AM

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 2:17 AM

No, I actually mean it when I say I’m pro-life.

Death of a single innocent person to capital punishment is unacceptable.

gyrmnix on December 31, 2011 at 2:21 AM

Didn’t they trade a 1,000 terrorists for one Israeli? Seems they take the sanctity of life entirely too seriously. The end result is more dead Israeli’s when all is said and done and the same seems to be the case in the justice system as well.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 2:08 AM

They did, and they would do it again. They seem to do just fine with that attitude, by the way. Every single Israeli soldier I know was glad they made that trade. If they’re not afraid, why should you be?

For them those dead lives are just statistics.

In a way, I think those people are dead inside, themselves.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 2:05 AM

You should tell that to my mother. Oh, right, you can’t, because she was killed. I guess I just see her as a statistic, though.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 2:22 AM

No, I actually mean it when I say I’m pro-life.

Death of a single innocent person to capital punishment is unacceptable.

gyrmnix on December 31, 2011 at 2:21 AM

So where does war fit in?

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 2:23 AM

This is interesting to me. So you’re saying that if a murderer goes out and kills an innocent person, that murderer should be put to death. But if our justice system goes and executes an innocent person, everyone involved gets a pass? Is this your position?

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 2:17 AM

The argument about wrongful convictions is only meritous if your position is to end all forms of punishment. Do you advocate such?

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 2:24 AM

Death of a single innocent person to capital punishment is unacceptable.

gyrmnix on December 31, 2011 at 2:21 AM

You keep on using that to protect murderers and rapists, though. That’s the equivalence of those who support abortion using the example of rape and incest, although those incidents are very few, just as your example is.

I mentioned DNA evidence. You conveniently ignore it. You really don’t care about convicting innocent people. You just want to posture as some pro life person without taking any consideration as to the loss of innocent life by criminals.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 2:24 AM

You should tell that to my mother. Oh, right, you can’t, because she was killed. I guess I just see her as a statistic, though.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 2:22 AM

Being killed and being murdered are two different things.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 2:26 AM

The state who executes a innocent man did not do so with malice.

How can you see those two as the same?

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 2:21 AM

Well, I’m sure that’s a relief for the family. “We killed your innocent relative, but there was no malice aforethought. Still friends?”

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 2:26 AM

No, I actually mean it when I say I’m pro-life.

Death of a single innocent person to capital punishment is unacceptable.

gyrmnix on December 31, 2011 at 2:21 AM

You are saying that the life of a killer is more important than that of his victim(s).

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 2:27 AM

Being killed and being murdered are two different things.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 2:26 AM

I’m not comfortable discussing the circumstances of her death with strangers, which is why I said killed. I refuse to get any more specific in an anonymous online forum. That being said, don’t you dare pull the ****ing moral authority card on me.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 2:28 AM

Well, I’m sure that’s a relief for the family. “We killed your innocent relative, but there was no malice aforethought. Still friends?”

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 2:26 AM

Justice isn’t about trying to make friends. Its about trying to do whats right in a complicated world where we deal with men who are not angels and we cannot have perfect knowledge. That lack of perfection does not give us leave to take the cowards route and refuse to make decisions.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 2:29 AM

I’m not comfortable discussing the circumstances of her death with strangers, which is why I said killed. I refuse to get any more specific in an anonymous online forum. That being said, don’t you dare pull the ****ing moral authority card on me.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 2:28 AM

You brought it up, not me. If you’re crass enough to bring it up in an anonymous forum to give yourself some kind of moral high ground, then that’s your problem, not mine.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 2:31 AM

The argument about wrongful convictions is only meritous if your position is to end all forms of punishment. Do you advocate such?

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 2:24 AM

Not really. If your conviction is later overturned and you were sentenced to life w/o parole, they let you out. If you got the needle? Well, oopsie. Sucks for you.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 2:33 AM

This is interesting to me. So you’re saying that if a murderer goes out and kills an innocent person, that murderer should be put to death. But if our justice system goes and executes an innocent person, everyone involved gets a pass? Is this your position?

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 2:17 AM

There isn’t a moral equivalence between the two.

Someone who murders another is choosing evil and violating that unsigned social compact.

The state who executes a innocent man did not do so with malice.

How can you see those two as the same?

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 2:21 AM

I don’t see them as the same. Intent certainly factors into it. I was trying to make a larger point, but I probably didn’t phrase it correctly. I’m not always good with words.

So just to cut to the chase: regardless of whether an innocent person loses his or her life at the hands of a murderer or at the hands of the court, the end result is the same. An innocent person is dead and cannot be brought back. Therefore, if the protection of innocent life is the ultimate goal here, then why risk executing innocent people – something that we know has happened more than a few times – when life imprisonment can be used to keep murderers off the streets and also provide the system with the opportunity to come back and correct its mistake when it unintentionally convicts an innocent person?

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 2:33 AM

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 2:23 AM

I know I’ve mentioned that I’m anti-war here. Go look up the Just War Theory if you want to learn more.

And when nations do go to war, while fitting under those guidelines, they should do everything humanly possible to ensure that innocents are out of the way (such as the Israel-Lebanon war in ’06).

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 2:24 AM

Who’s protecting them? Put them in jail and throw away the key. Same effect as capital punishment, only it’s cheaper and provides a margin of error.

You lock up somebody who was innocent, you can set them free. While they’ll never get back those years that were robbed of them, they’ll at least be able to live the rest of their lives.

The difference between you and me, you see the innocents killed by capital punishment as merely a statistic.

gyrmnix on December 31, 2011 at 2:33 AM

Bring it.

hotairhead on December 31, 2011 at 2:34 AM

No, I actually mean it when I say I’m pro-life.

Death of a single innocent person to capital punishment is unacceptable.

gyrmnix on December 31, 2011 at 2:21 AM

You are saying that the life of a killer is more important than that of his victim(s).

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 2:27 AM

Crap! Didn’t see the bold word the first time. Apologies. Again, that argument would only be meritous if the position was all forms of punishment should be abolished.

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 2:35 AM

The difference between you and me, you see the innocents killed by capital punishment as merely a statistic.

gyrmnix on December 31, 2011 at 2:33 AM

More intellectually dishonesty from you.

Why won’t you address my comments about DNA used as evidence to execute criminals, which would eliminate the injustice against an innocent person?

I bet you don’t like that, do you? It destroys your argument.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 2:35 AM

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 2:27 AM

I’m saying the life of a man wrongly accused is important.

gyrmnix on December 31, 2011 at 2:37 AM

You brought it up, not me. If you’re crass enough to bring it up in an anonymous forum to give yourself some kind of moral high ground, then that’s your problem, not mine.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 2:31 AM

I brought it up because you’re wrong. You think your stance gives you moral authority because you’re the only one who thinks about the victims. Well, you’re not. You’re not a moral crusader, you’re just sanctimonious.

In fact, you obviously don’t give a damn about the victims who don’t advocate for capital punishment.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 2:37 AM

This is interesting to me. So you’re saying that if a murderer goes out and kills an innocent person, that murderer should be put to death. But if our justice system goes and executes an innocent person, everyone involved gets a pass? Is this your position?

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 2:17 AM

The argument about wrongful convictions is only meritous if your position is to end all forms of punishment. Do you advocate such?

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 2:24 AM

I’ve heard this argument before, and I do understand it. But I have to respectfully disagree.

When someone is wrongfully punished, amends can be made. That option isn’t available when the punishment is death.

I don’t expect to ever have a perfect justice system that doesn’t ever make mistakes. That would be unreasonable. But the execution of innocent people is a permanent thing. There is no correcting that mistake after its done.

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 2:38 AM

Not really. If your conviction is later overturned and you were sentenced to life w/o parole, they let you out. If you got the needle? Well, oopsie. Sucks for you.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 2:33 AM

If one was advocating to apply capital punishment on innocents what good would it do to the argument to bring up those that are truly guilty?

I hope the point won’t be lost.

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 2:39 AM

I’m saying the life of a man wrongly accused is important.

gyrmnix on December 31, 2011 at 2:37 AM

I know. I caught it afterwards. My apologies.

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 2:40 AM

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 2:35 AM

Intellectual dishonesty? You’re the one supporting a barbaric practice while trying to accuse others of barbarism. I’ll kindly overlook it this time.

Why won’t you address my comments about DNA used as evidence to execute criminals, which would eliminate the injustice against an innocent person?

If there’s even a 1% chance of an innocent being wrongly accused, it’s unacceptable.

Don’t waste my time with bringing up DNA evidence without context.

gyrmnix on December 31, 2011 at 2:40 AM

That lack of perfection does not give us leave to take the cowards route and refuse to make decisions.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 2:29 AM

Locking someone up for life is still a decision, sharrukin.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 2:40 AM

Therefore, if the protection of innocent life is the ultimate goal here, then why risk executing innocent people – something that we know has happened more than a few times – when life imprisonment can be used to keep murderers off the streets and also provide the system with the opportunity to come back and correct its mistake when it unintentionally convicts an innocent person?

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 2:33 AM

The reasons are several. The deciding one for me is that the number of innocents who have been executed is rather low and the number of innocents killed by escapees, guards killed, and other prisoners killed is much larger.

If avoiding the death of innocents is the goal then executing them makes far more sense in terms of numbers.

That isn’t what this is about for most though. What it amounts to is giving into moral cowardice which has become prevalent in our society. They want to avoid the state taking action because they see the blood as being on their hands through their participation in society. They would rather have innocents die than have any of the guilt accrue to them.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 2:43 AM

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 2:17 AM

I made a comment about the use of DNA to convict people, which would lessen the chances of the issue you brought up, but you conveniently ignored it.

Talk about intellectual dishonesty. Your being right is more important to you than protecting the lives of innocent people.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 2:19 AM

I didn’t ignore anything.

1. I didn’t see your comment until I took a few minutes to go back and read through the comments I’ve missed as I’ve been typing my replies.

2. I don’t care if you think I’m intellectually dishonest, nor do I care about your unfounded conclusions about me.

3. DNA evidence helps a lot, but there are some issues with it as well. But considering your tone and attitude, I think I’ll just continue discussing this with the other people in this thread who are more reasonable and civil than you appear to be.

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 2:43 AM

I brought it up because you’re wrong. You think your stance gives you moral authority because you’re the only one who thinks about the victims. Well, you’re not. You’re not a moral crusader, you’re just sanctimonious.

In fact, you obviously don’t give a damn about the victims who don’t advocate for capital punishment.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 2:37 AM

I don’t really care what you think of me. But I do know this: anyone who is so weak as to cringe from capital punishment for heinous crimes is too weak to live in a civilized society.

Europe banned capital punishment and they’ve become a bunch of Eloi. Soon they will be taken over by Muslims because they are too weak to fight back.

In a nutshell, that’s what the problem is. When people are too afraid to fight back, to afraid to stand up to bullies, to afraid to kill before being killed such as fighting wars, they’re on a road to suicide and eventual extinction. They don’t know right from wrong any more.

To quote a Christian apologist, “Morality, like art, means drawing the line somewhere”. Those who are too weak to draw the line at murder are too soft to live.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 2:44 AM

The reasons are several. The deciding one for me is that the number of innocents who have been executed is rather low and the number of innocents killed by escapees, guards killed, and other prisoners killed is much larger.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 2:43 AM

When was the last honest-to-goodness prison break? I’m honestly asking, I haven’t heard any in the news lately.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 2:44 AM

If there’s even a 1% chance of an innocent being wrongly accused, it’s unacceptable.

Don’t waste my time with bringing up DNA evidence without context

gyrmnix on December 31, 2011 at 2:40 AM

Oh brother. Dismiss DNA “without context”? LOL.

Never mind. You sound like you’re 12.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 2:45 AM

When was the last honest-to-goodness prison break? I’m honestly asking, I haven’t heard any in the news lately.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 2:44 AM

Last week. Google it.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 2:46 AM

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 2:44 AM

You are one hades of a wordsmith!
I agree totally.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 31, 2011 at 2:46 AM

Locking someone up for life is still a decision, sharrukin.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 2:40 AM

No it isn’t. It is the default minimum required when the justice system delivers a verdict of guilt on a terrible crime. Releasing them would be unacceptable, though as you implied with Israel and the 1,000 terrorists released that even that isn’t unthinkable for you.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 2:47 AM

I don’t really care what you think of me. But I do know this: anyone who is so weak as to cringe from capital punishment for heinous crimes is too weak to live in a civilized society.

Europe banned capital punishment and they’ve become a bunch of Eloi. Soon they will be taken over by Muslims because they are too weak to fight back.

In a nutshell, that’s what the problem is. When people are too afraid to fight back, to afraid to stand up to bullies, to afraid to kill before being killed such as fighting wars, they’re on a road to suicide and eventual extinction. They don’t know right from wrong any more.

To quote a Christian apologist, “Morality, like art, means drawing the line somewhere”. Those who are too weak to draw the line at murder are too soft to live.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 2:44 AM

Yeah, those Israelis are just too weak to be civilized. They’ve been absolutely overrun by Muslims because they’ve simply given up and they no longer fight back.

Sorry, but I just don’t believe that the countries that comprise the height of civilization are the US, Japan, Iran, North Korea, and China. Two of those things are most definitely not like the other.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 2:47 AM

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 2:47 AM

I’m Jewish and very pro-Israel…and Bibi’s decision to release those 1000 terrorist koranimals was WRONG!

annoyinglittletwerp on December 31, 2011 at 2:49 AM

When was the last honest-to-goodness prison break? I’m honestly asking, I haven’t heard any in the news lately.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 2:44 AM

There are lots.

Three inmates at an Arizona State Prison for-profit Management and Training Corporation operated facility on July 30, 2010. Two, Daniel Renwick and Tracy Province were murderers and John McCluskey had been convicted of attempted murders.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 2:50 AM

Europe banned capital punishment…

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 2:44 AM

So did a near majority of the rest of the world (if you lump in the countries that haven’t used it in 10 years and the countries that reserve it for exceptional circumstance, it becomes a vast majority).

Have fun arguing with yourself, I’m done dealing with your nonsense.

gyrmnix on December 31, 2011 at 2:51 AM

No it isn’t. It is the default minimum required when the justice system delivers a verdict of guilt on a terrible crime. Releasing them would be unacceptable, though as you implied with Israel and the 1,000 terrorists released that even that isn’t unthinkable for you.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 2:47 AM

Like I asked you, why are you afraid if the Israeli army isn’t? Yeah, you’re right, I actually care about Gilad Shalit’s life more than a gross of backwater Arab criminals.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4135847,00.html

79% of Israelis supported the deal. You can barely get 79% of Americans to agree on anything.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 2:53 AM

Yeah, those Israelis are just too weak to be civilized. They’ve been absolutely overrun by Muslims because they’ve simply given up and they no longer fight back.

They are hiding behind a fence and unwilling to deal with constant rockets being fired at them by shooting back. They have artillery and fighter bombers and should make such attacks very painful for their enemies.

Sorry, but I just don’t believe that the countries that comprise the height of civilization are the US, Japan, Iran, North Korea, and China. Two of those things are most definitely not like the other.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 2:47 AM

Seems you are just too good and pure for this vale of tears we live in. Might I suggest a monastery?

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 2:53 AM

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 2:47 AM

I’m quite concerned for Israel, because they are becoming too soft and that invites violence.

What we’re suffering from has infected many western countries, and that’s why I think those ominous prophecies about western civilization in its death throes may be true.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 2:54 AM

gyrmnix on December 31, 2011 at 2:51 AM

Lol, project much?

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 2:55 AM

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 2:53 AM

Many of those ‘backwater arab criminals’ have promised to return to Israel to kill again.
Sorry-but Shalit’s life wasn’t worth it.
Negotiating with Killers EMPOWERS killers.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 31, 2011 at 2:55 AM

Seems you are just too good and pure for this vale of tears we live in. Might I suggest a monastery?

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 2:53 AM

Lol, and he accused me of sanctimony?

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 2:56 AM

79% of Israelis supported the deal. You can barely get 79% of Americans to agree on anything.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 2:53 AM

Like I said, justice isn’t a popularity contest. Israel is willing to accept the death of many innocents to assuage their conscience regarding Shalit. That’s cowardice.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 2:56 AM

The state who executes a innocent man did not do so with malice.

How can you see those two as the same?

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 2:21 AM

Whether there was malice or not, you have taken from the innocent man something you cannot give back to him. If you think giving something to his heirs is sufficient, then you have become a liberal — for they believe that the taking of money from a rich man in the village can be repaid by giving the money to the village idiot.

The individual becomes the collective.

unclesmrgol on December 31, 2011 at 2:57 AM

Therefore, if the protection of innocent life is the ultimate goal here, then why risk executing innocent people – something that we know has happened more than a few times – when life imprisonment can be used to keep murderers off the streets and also provide the system with the opportunity to come back and correct its mistake when it unintentionally convicts an innocent person?

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 2:33 AM

The reasons are several. The deciding one for me is that the number of innocents who have been executed is rather low and the number of innocents killed by escapees, guards killed, and other prisoners killed is much larger.

If avoiding the death of innocents is the goal then executing them makes far more sense in terms of numbers.

That isn’t what this is about for most though. What it amounts to is giving into moral cowardice which has become prevalent in our society. They want to avoid the state taking action because they see the blood as being on their hands through their participation in society. They would rather have innocents die than have any of the guilt accrue to them.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 2:43 AM

I think there are more efficient ways of protecting innocents than capital punishment, but that’s just me. We can always agree to disagree. In fact, we may have no choice, since I’m starting to fall asleep at my keyboard. ;)

As for the moral cowardice angle, I can’t say I haven’t observed that in others. But I have no issue with executing proven murderers (unless they’re minors – that’s a different story). My issue is with the unintended execution of innocent people. That is the basis for my opposition to capital punishment as it is currently implemented.

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 2:57 AM

I suppose a little background may be helpful (if interested of course). My moral guide is that of the Bible. That capital punishment is allowed (no, actually commanded) in all of the first five books (Mosaic Law) is striking. In fact, if I’m not mistaken, it’s the only command that is mentioned in all five. It is that important. I naturally asked myself, “why?”

And it is simply this: God puts nothing on Earth more precious and of more value in His eyes than that of our blood. There was/is to be no doubt in all of our eyes that this is the ultimate violation which the ultimate price can only make up for. Anything less; lessens its meaning.

All of the talk about sparing of one innocent on death row gets away from the issue of, “why” in my opinion. I nor anyone else is not a fan and certainly not advocating putting an innocent to death. It’s only irrelevant in the purpose phase of the argument.

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 2:58 AM

So did a near majority of the rest of the world (if you lump in the countries that haven’t used it in 10 years and the countries that reserve it for exceptional circumstance, it becomes a vast majority).

Have fun arguing with yourself, I’m done dealing with your nonsense.

gyrmnix on December 31, 2011 at 2:51 AM

I guess the states w/o capital punishment aren’t civilized, either. Even Alaska, home of our savior!

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 2:58 AM

If you think giving something to his heirs is sufficient, then you have become a liberal — for they believe that the taking of money from a rich man in the village can be repaid by giving the money to the village idiot.

The individual becomes the collective.

unclesmrgol on December 31, 2011 at 2:57 AM

Actually, the practice of monetary compensation for the taking of innocent life is quite ancient. It comes from the Anglo Saxon concept of “wergild”.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 2:59 AM

Whether there was malice or not, you have taken from the innocent man something you cannot give back to him.

unclesmrgol on December 31, 2011 at 2:57 AM

You can’t give back twenty years of his life being the sex toy of Bubba either.

So we cannot sentence them to prison now?

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 3:00 AM

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 2:58 AM

See, I just don’t understand this. You’re using the Bible/Mosaic Law as a guide, but you think Israel is getting it wrong?

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 3:01 AM

We can always agree to disagree. In fact, we may have no choice, since I’m starting to fall asleep at my keyboard. ;)

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 2:57 AM

Night then, and it was an interesting conversation.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 3:01 AM

You can’t give back twenty years of his life being the sex toy of Bubba either.

So we cannot sentence them to prison now?

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 3:00 AM

His good name is ruined too. Oh hell, let’s just stop punishing people altogether! We might make a mistake!

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 3:02 AM

See, I just don’t understand this. You’re using the Bible/Mosaic Law as a guide, but you think Israel is getting it wrong?

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 3:01 AM

The name Israel doesn’t mean they are following the biblical commandments given by God. In fact, if you read the bible they have a habit of not doing that.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 3:03 AM

Seems you are just too good and pure for this vale of tears we live in. Might I suggest a monastery?

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 2:53 AM

Talk about a complete non-argument. No, you’re right, we should be proud that we’re ranked next to Iran, North Korea and China. They’re the only other countries with “courage,” right?

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 3:03 AM

The name Israel doesn’t mean they are following the biblical commandments given by God. In fact, if you read the bible they have a habit of not doing that.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 3:03 AM

Yeah, they had a habit of not doing it 4,000 years ago. I think the world’s largest collection of Jews might have a bit more of a handle on Mosaic Law than you do, sharrukin.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 3:05 AM

His good name is ruined too. Oh hell, let’s just stop punishing people altogether! We might make a mistake!

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 3:02 AM

Dreadful source, but a good point…

There is a point of morbid decay and decadence in the history of society when it itself takes sides on behalf of the person who harms it, the criminal, and does so, in fact, seriously and honestly. Punishment: that seems to society somehow or other unreasonable. What’s certain is that the idea of “punishment” and “We should punish” causes it distress, makes it afraid. “Is it not enough to make him un-dangerous? Why still punish? To punish is itself dreadful!”

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 3:05 AM

See, I just don’t understand this. You’re using the Bible/Mosaic Law as a guide, but you think Israel is getting it wrong?

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 3:01 AM

I haven’t mentioned Israel in this thread but…it cannot be my fault that Israel has chosen the secular version of justice over that of God’s.

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 3:06 AM

His good name is ruined too. Oh hell, let’s just stop punishing people altogether! We might make a mistake!

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 3:02 AM

If this strawman is your only argument left, then I’m done here.

But hey, while you’re on that high horse, can you at least tell me what tomorrow’s weather is going to be like?

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 3:06 AM

All of the talk about sparing of one innocent on death row gets away from the issue of, “why” in my opinion. I nor anyone else is not a fan and certainly not advocating putting an innocent to death. It’s only irrelevant in the purpose phase of the argument.

anuts on December 31, 2011 at

2:58 AM

It’s the same practice pro abortion people use to advocate abortion: But what about the case of incest and rape? We must allow abortion then! They never mention the fact that a tiny percentage of women become pregnant for those reasons. It’s using the exception to confirm the rule.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 3:06 AM

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 3:05 AM

There are a lot of bad parents with the same problem. And their kids grow up to be spoiled brats.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 3:08 AM

We can always agree to disagree. In fact, we may have no choice, since I’m starting to fall asleep at my keyboard. ;)

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 2:57 AM

Night then, and it was an interesting conversation.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 3:01 AM

Thanks, and same to you. Catch ya on the next Paul thread. =P

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 3:08 AM

I haven’t mentioned Israel in this thread but…it cannot be my fault that Israel has chosen the secular version of justice over that of God’s.

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 3:06 AM

Even Moses didn’t always agree with God’s justice.

I do love the unbridled arrogance in this thread, though.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 3:08 AM

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 2:58 AM

The Old Testament also says that homosexuals should be executed.

Also, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

gyrmnix on December 31, 2011 at 3:09 AM

I think the world’s largest collection of Jews might have a bit more of a handle on Mosaic Law than you do, sharrukin.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 3:05 AM

The world’s second largest collection of Jews is found in New York City and they too would clearly have a better grasp of biblical morality and right conduct than someone like me, right?

I guess we should vote for Obama, cause that would be what Mosaic Law commands?

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 3:09 AM

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 3:06 AM

You certainly are a lazy person. You claim there are no prison breaks and we provide several links to recent ones. Now you want someone else to tell you the weather.

I’m not surprised that someone so lazy is so poorly informed.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 3:09 AM

2:58 AM

It’s the same practice pro abortion people use to advocate abortion: But what about the case of incest and rape? We must allow abortion then! They never mention the fact that a tiny percentage of women become pregnant for those reasons. It’s using the exception to confirm the rule.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 3:06 AM

If we don’t punish women who abort their children, aren’t we teaching society that a fetus’s life is worth less than that of any other person? Hell, you can go to jail for illegally downloading music, but not for murdering your unborn child.

Shame on society!

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 3:10 AM

Thanks, and same to you. Catch ya on the next Paul thread. =P

humili mente on December 31, 2011 at 3:08 AM

I’ll be there.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 3:11 AM

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 3:10 AM

Non sequitor.

You’re thrashing about in a very silly manner now.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 3:13 AM

The world’s second largest collection of Jews is found in New York City and they too would clearly have a better grasp of biblical morality and right conduct than someone like me, right?

I guess we should vote for Obama, cause that would be what Mosaic Law commands?

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 3:09 AM

Well, NY doesn’t have the death penalty either. Looks like they’re 2 for 2, sharrukin. Meanwhile, I’ve got the word of 3 Christians from the heartland versus 7 million Jews re: Mosaic Law. Who am I supposed to believe, again?

Many of those ‘backwater arab criminals’ have promised to return to Israel to kill again.
Sorry-but Shalit’s life wasn’t worth it.
Negotiating with Killers EMPOWERS killers.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 31, 2011 at 2:55 AM

Israelis disagree. Their opinion on the matter is worth more than yours.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 3:16 AM

Romney/rand paul 2012

menoname on December 31, 2011 at 3:17 AM

Israelis disagree. Their opinion on the matter is worth more than yours.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 3:16 AM

Oh I didn’t know that you’re privy to every Israeli’s opinion on the matter.

I guess since we passed Obamacare, that must mean every American is for it.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 3:18 AM

http://www.wfmz.com/news/news-regional-berks/Police-Prison-inmate-escapes-from-work-program-in-cemetery/-/121418/7282918/-/ila46b/-/index.html

“Smith, 32, is serving a sentence for a criminal trespass conviction.”

In other words, someone who wouldn’t have ever been given the death penalty.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20124902-504083/two-men-escape-maximum-security-prison-in-fla-on-monday/

Taylor and Reed were both re-captured.

http://www.examiner.com/top-news-in-san-francisco/breaking-news-armed-inmate-escapes-from-santa-cruz-prison

Ainsworth was re-captured.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 3:20 AM

Oh I didn’t know that you’re privy to every Israeli’s opinion on the matter.

I guess since we passed Obamacare, that must mean every American is for it.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 3:18 AM

79% of Israelis agreed to the release.

I know, I know, that’s just an opinion poll. I should use my crystal ball instead.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 3:21 AM

Well, NY doesn’t have the death penalty either. Looks like they’re 2 for 2, sharrukin. Meanwhile, I’ve got the word of 3 Christians from the heartland versus 7 million Jews re: Mosaic Law. Who am I supposed to believe, again?

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 3:16 AM

Well gosh if New York says so then we should follow that guiding light of morality that has been such a beacon of truth and goodness for the nation.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 3:22 AM

Romney/rand paul 2012

menoname on December 31, 2011 at 3:17 AM

Rand needs to wait for a couple years after Ron’s retirement, so that he’s no longer harmed by the Ronulan stink. I do believe he’ll eventually be a force for the GOP.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 3:23 AM

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 3:20 AM

It doesn’t matter what the conviction was for, or whether they were re-captured or not. The point was that you claimed that there were no prison breaks since you never heard about them (which is laughable in itself because it’s so Pauline Kael-like: “I don’t know how Nixon got elected because no one I know voted for him!”)

Fact is, you were proven wrong in claiming there are no prison breaks. There are plenty. What’s even more laughable, is that you think our justice system is so inept as to convict or execute innocent people, yet it’s so perfect in its ability to keep prisoners from escaping.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 3:24 AM

I wonder if those who think the risk of an innocent person being executed is worth our current death penalty process would be willing to be the innocent person who had to die. My guess is they wouldn’t. But as long as its someone else…why that risk is acceptable .

Politricks on December 31, 2011 at 3:24 AM

Well gosh if New York says so then we should follow that guiding light of morality that has been such a beacon of truth and goodness for the nation.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 3:22 AM

It’s a stupid point by you, anyway, because New York is still less than 10% Jewish. But if you’re going to pull that card, then I’ll bring up that the two highest Jewish concentrations are both in places with no capital punishment. Mosaic Law 1, sharrukin 0.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 3:26 AM

Like I said, there’s a distinct difference between justice and revenge. If we can achieve the same results with life w/o parole, then jumping up to capital punishment is just a desire to seek revenge.

gyrmnix on December 31, 2011 at 2:09 AM

You don’t achieve the same result. Clearly.

besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 3:26 AM

I wonder if those who think the risk of an innocent person being executed is worth our current death penalty process would be willing to be the innocent person who had to die. My guess is they wouldn’t. But as long as its someone else…why that risk is acceptable .

Politricks on December 31, 2011 at 3:24 AM

No. That’s why I think we should have DNA evidence to execute someone.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 3:26 AM

I wonder if those who think the risk of an innocent person being executed is worth our current death penalty process would be willing to be the innocent person who had to die. My guess is they wouldn’t. But as long as its someone else…why that risk is acceptable .

Politricks on December 31, 2011 at 3:24 AM

Why, you! You’re just a coward who doesn’t care about the victims!

What’s a few innocent lives if it earns us a vicarious thrill when we read about some scumbag who got the needle? Omelet, eggs, etc.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 3:28 AM

I wonder if those who think the risk of an innocent person being executed is worth our current death penalty process would be willing to be the innocent person who had to die. My guess is they wouldn’t. But as long as its someone else…why that risk is acceptable .

Politricks on December 31, 2011 at 3:24 AM

If you could line up the innocents thats would be killed by all those who were not executed then I think you might have a lot more volunteers than you imagine.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 3:29 AM

Good Solid, are you claiming Israel’s position on the death penalty is that of Mosaic Law?

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 3:29 AM

Rand needs to wait for a couple years after Ron’s retirement, so that he’s no longer harmed by the Ronulan stink. I do believe he’ll eventually be a force for the GOP.

Good Solid B-Plus

I think it would guarantee a Romney win against obama.

menoname on December 31, 2011 at 3:29 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6