quote:

---

Originally posted by choco man:
Lawrence Brewer was recently executed. I don't think many people have a problem with the Death Penalty applied there.

When you discuss the death penalty, race usually plays a greater part in the discussion than the actually penalty itself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by super324:
Or....its better to actually use someone who is potentially not guilty to show why the death penalty is bad, because it appeals to a broader base not just people who think that the state killing someone is morally wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by choco man:
Death penalty is bad or is system of determining if someone is innocent or guilty bad? There's a really big difference between the two.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Volcanon:
Systems based on subjective evidence and reasoning based on often incomplete and circumstantial evidence are rarely conductive to infallible death penalty regimes. That's why most of the civilized world has abolished the death penalty. The US is itself a murderer several times over for all of the innocent men executed over the last two centuries.

---

Because there doesn't exist a perfect justice system which can administer the proper penalties 100% of the time, doesn't mean that the death penalty is wrong. After all, guilty people are executed as well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by choco man:
Because there doesn't exist a perfect justice system which can administer the proper penalties 100% of the time, doesn't mean that the death penalty is wrong. After all, guilty people are executed as well.

The death penalty is a proper punishment for certain crimes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Volcanon:
Execute one innocent man and the state is no better than the criminals it seeks to destroy. At least wrongfully imprisoned people can be compensated for their injustice. Death cannot be undone.

---

But if you *know* for sure the person is guilty...

Slippery slope, I know.

__________________
#2 in posts from British Columbia!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr.C:
But if you *know* for sure the person is guilty...

Slippery slope, I know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hilikuS:
Is it me or is the GOP going to just keep polling people and trying random candidates until something sticks?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by speechjew:
until Palin says she's running.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by speechjew:
until Palin says she's running.

---

It just seems like every week I hear about another teabagger, or whatever else that's "gaining momentum".

Admittedly, I think Palin is a lesser evil when compared to Bachmann. Just when I thought it couldn't be worse, out comes Shelly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hilikuS:

Admittedly, I think Palin is a lesser evil when compared to Bachmann. Just when I thought it couldn't be worse, out comes Michelle.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shadow88:
I'm not sure, they're both fairly crazy. I think Palin is a double-dose, though. Perry is a bit of a turd, too. I'm not really impressed with any of the republican candidates at this point. I also hate how there's already a decent amount of mudslinging.

---

I watched most of the GOP debate a few weeks back, and there was a lot of anti-Obama stuff, which is to expected (although to me it seemed sorta childish). I didn't mind Perry, at least he stood up for things he did. He showed up and had a list of things that he did. he got scrutenized for them, but it was like oh ok he got some crap done. I'm for that. I kind of agreed with his approach (especially with the immigration thing involving colleges).

The rest of them were there to bury his decisions apparently.

Literally all Bachmann did in the amount of the program that I watched was (in order):

1. Get asked a question.
2. Ignore the question and sidestep into something else.
3. Mention either America, the Constitution or anti-Obama.
4. Get applauded loudly.

At least Palin seems dumb and misguided. It seems to me the teabaggers think Bachmann is insightful. Like she's "the truth".

The most impressive part of it was Ron Paul. I didn't agree with everything he proposed, but it was like crazy. Boom goes the dynamite basically. I was impressed with the way he had some actual ideas and some logic to back them up, even if the ideas seemed totally out of left field.

I miss Mike Huckabee talking about how he doesn't believe in evolution. They need another humorous heel candidate to keep things light and amusing.

Oh and the second best part of the program was Romney. His posture coach or whatever has him looking at whoever is talking with this weird, almost creepy smirk on his face the entire time. He would hardly blink, just kept watching the person talking. Trying to look attentive I guess, but it was sorta hilarious. He looked like a ventriloquist dummy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shadow88:
____ is a bit of a turd, too.

---

Every election is between either a big turd or a giant douche

quote:

---

Originally posted by hilikuS:
I watched most of the GOP debate a few weeks back, and there was a lot of anti-Obama stuff, which is to expected (although to me it seemed sorta childish). I didn't mind Perry, at least he stood up for things he did. He showed up and had a list of things that he did. he got scrutenized for them, but it was like oh ok he got some crap done. I'm for that. I kind of agreed with his approach (especially with the immigration thing involving colleges).

---

I have a few problems with Perry. He has a few opinions that I strongly don't share, like his view on same-sex marriage.

He also disputes human impact on the climate, and has called the science behind it, essentially, a bunch of nonsense at least once or twice. He doesn't want to regulate greenhouse emissions, and so on and so forth - or at least didn't want to in Texas. On more or less every environmental issue, Perry and I have opposing viewpoints.

He's also (in my opinion) called out Obama on a number of things incorrectly, ranging from foreign policy/defense issues to his handling of the stimulus/bailout situation. Perry opposed the stimulus, but bragged about his job creation in Texas in one of the debates. Some of those jobs were created using funds from the stimulus package, which he never mentions.

His whole "The Response" stunt seemed like a bunch of nonsense to me, and it's not the first time he's used public prayer to combat problems.

His attitude towards the fed is also crazy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shadow88:
I have a few problems with Perry. He has a few opinions that I strongly don't share, like his view on same-sex marriage.

He also disputes human impact on the climate, and has called the science behind it, essentially, a bunch of nonsense at least once or twice. He doesn't want to regulate greenhouse emissions, and so on and so forth - or at least didn't want to in Texas. On more or less every environmental issue, Perry and I have opposing viewpoints.

He's also (in my opinion) called out Obama on a number of things incorrectly, ranging from foreign policy/defense issues to his handling of the stimulus/bailout situation. Perry opposed the stimulus, but bragged about his job creation in Texas in one of the debates. Some of those jobs were created using funds from the stimulus package, which he never mentions.

His whole "The Response" stunt seemed like a bunch of nonsense to me, and it's not the first time he's used public prayer to combat problems.

His attitude towards the fed is also crazy.

I'm sure he's done a handful of good things. I just can't find much common ground with him, unfortunately.

---

Much of the Republican philosophy makes me want to hit a baby. From what you're explaining, it's basically par for the course. I was just going on what I saw during that debate. If I had to deal with one of those people in the room as president, Ron Paul excluded, because nobody will ever elect that guy (although as I mentioned, he at least had some solutions), I'd go with him over Romney. The other ones seemed awful to me. Especially teabaggers. If Wolf Blitzer was an option, I don't hate him, he'd be my man (since he was also in the room).

Having read your response, I would have to agree with you on most of the points there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hilikuS:
Much of the Republican philosophy makes me want to hit a baby. From what you're explaining, it's basically par for the course. I was just going on what I saw during that debate. If I had to deal with one of those people in the room as president, Ron Paul excluded, because nobody will ever elect that guy (although as I mentioned, he at least had some solutions), I'd go with him over Romney. The other ones seemed awful to me. Especially teabaggers. If Wolf Blitzer was an option, I don't hate him, he'd be my man (since he was also in the room).

Having read your response, I would have to agree with you on most of the points there.

Basically, I hate em all, but Perry seemed the least bad.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hilikuS:

Basically, I hate em all, but Perry seemed the least bad.

---

I would be worried about Perry's status as W. on roids if he ever got elected. I don't plan on getting married in the next year, but would like to have the option available a few years down the road.

He's at least fairly articulate, though. That's something.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shadow88:
I would be worried about Perry's status as W. on roids if he ever got elected. I don't plan on getting married in the next year, but would like to have the option available a few years down the road.

He's at least fairly articulate, though. That's something.

---

Perry? Seems to me he can't articulate on most National issues.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Volcanon:
Ron Paul is the only one who seems to at least speak directly and clearly. If I was American I'd certainly not want any of these ignoramuses as my leader.

---

Oh definitely, but I kind of put him in an entirely different realm than the others. The guy is running for Republican, but he's nothing like any of the other Republican candidates. A lot of my friends like him, and I can see why. You're right he talks clearly, and talks about actual solutions to problems. Something that is refreshing to hear. The problem with him is, a lot of people here will disregard him BECAUSE he's speaking with that tone. He doesn't try to appeal to your emotions, or harp on things you dislike. Basically, he's always running, but never seems to get many votes. To me he makes a lot of them look like real chumps, but to most of the country it works the opposite (at least it seems to).

To clarify my previous post. Perry seemed the least bad, Paul excluded.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shadow88:
I would be worried about Perry's status as W. on roids if he ever got elected. I don't plan on getting married in the next year, but would like to have the option available a few years down the road.

He's at least fairly articulate, though. That's something.

---

In case you didn't know:
http://www.businessinsider.com/senate-takes-up-bill-to-punish-china-for-manipulating-currency-2011-10

.02,
Jesse

1) this is just going to increase the cost of living, which is going to hurt poor americans the hardest.
2) the vast majority of countries peg their currency to the us dollar; going after china is silly, as it shows that us politicians would rather use china as a scapegoat rather than fix structural problems with the us economy.
3) the federal reserve and the gov have done a great deal to devalue our currency, especially over the past decade, which makes complaining about china "manipulating" its currency pretty absurd
4) china officials have made a number of statements that they're going to allow their currency to rise versus the dollar because their policy of pegging to the dollar has contributed greatly to the chinese economy overheating and a massive property bubble.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jULAG:
stupid stupid stupid stupid

1) this is just going to increase the cost of living, which is going to hurt poor americans the hardest.
2) the vast majority of countries peg their currency to the us dollar; going after china is silly, as it shows that us politicians would rather use china as a scapegoat rather than fix structural problems with the us economy.
3) the federal reserve and the gov have done a great deal to devalue our currency, especially over the past decade, which makes complaining about china "manipulating" its currency pretty absurd
4) china officials have made a number of statements that they're going to allow their currency to rise versus the dollar because their policy of pegging to the dollar has contributed greatly to the chinese economy overheating and a massive property bubble.

seems like red meat designed for clueless americans who don't know a damn thing about international trade

---