I like how people come to baseless, ignorant conclusions.

I THINK George W. Bush will do a great job as president. I THINK he can unite this country. I THINK, but am I saying "he is going to do a great job and anyone who disagrees is an imbecile?" No, I am not. THAT would be ignorant, for he has done nothing in office, nor will he do so until late January, that could be used as an example to support such a claim.

"...alchoholic hillbilly..."

"...he's so dumb..."

"...we're fucked..."

"...I agree..."

It's a sad, sad day when a handful of grown men and women (at least I THINK most of you are grown) can come to conclusions about a man's ability to be the president of the United States based on a DUI incident that occured BEFORE A LOT OF YOU WERE EVEN BORN! I would understand if he had stopped for a few drinks on the way home from the voting center on election day and then started driving over peoples' yards and shit, but the man reportedly hasn't touched a drink since 1986. The man gave up alchohol in 1986! Hello?

Grow up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by slack3r:
I sure as hell hope he puts the death penalty to the full extint which I really think he will. If the murder rate goes down because of him..atleast we can say he contributed one good thing to this country. Maybe all these stupid fuckers who go around killing people for fun will think twice before they do it. "Eye for an Eye."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by slack3r:
I sure as hell hope he puts the death penalty to the full extint which I really think he will. If the murder rate goes down because of him..atleast we can say he contributed one good thing to this country. Maybe all these stupid fuckers who go around killing people for fun will think twice before they do it. "Eye for an Eye."

---

Think of it this way.

Cost of keeping a criminal (I refuse to call it a "person") on death row for 10 years - $a lot

Cost of keeping a criminal in prison for life - $a lot

Cost of executing a criminal if the justice system in regards to capital punishment is refined and made more efficient - $dirt cheap

Will it deter crime? Maybe, maybe not. Is that the purpose of the death penalty? Some think so, but I don't.

If a criminal guilty of a capital crime is put to death, a) he NEVER gets out of prison to repeat his actions, b) the government doesn't take tax money out of my pocket to maintain his worthless life until the day that he dies, and c) it may deter at least ONE person from commiting a violent crime. If at least ONE person is deterred, then that is a multitude of innocent people who will not have to suffer. I hope you don't mean to tell me that NO ONE will be deterred by the death penalty.

Also, on a side note, isn't it absolutely "hilarious-er" that most people who OPPOSE the death penalty are FOR abortion? Ever think of it that way?

Capital punishment is the cure for a virus. Abortion is a strand of that virus with which the irresponsible people of the United States just happen to be content.

I hope I've made my point,
-Warik

------------------
"When you use plastic, men aren't so fantastic."

The death penalty IS a deterrent, just maybe not the way you are thinking. One of its chief, though unstated, functions (and it is very efficient at this) is to induce criminals facing trial to plead guilty to their crime in exchange for the prosecution withdrawing their death penalty request.

Remember that before you cite the same old tired argument that the anti-DPers constantly drag up about not deterring crimes. there is more than one kind of deterrent.

Currently, it costs more to execute a criminal than to house one for the rest of their life (assuming normal life expectancy and mid20s incarceration). The reason for this is because of legal fees associated with the appeals process. The state often has to pay the bill for the criminal's defense, through public defenders and various other fees. By the time the appeals process runs its course, there has been so much court time that the fees are astronomical.

You are simply spouting other people's argument.

The word deterrent has many meanings. Know any DA's? Any prosecutors? I'm guessing you don't. I know several, and they love the death penalty for exactly the reason I described above. So do cops - you'd be amazed how fast confessions come out when the "needle" is "off the table." Why is this bad? The trial system is already backed up - generally it can take over a year for a case to go to trial, despite the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial. This is a huge service to prosecutors, and cops, and a money saver to the rest of us.

Example - the recent Wendy's massacre - both defendants have already expressed willingness to plead guilty and accept life sentences if the DP is withdrawn. (DA hasn't decided - other factors in play also)So instead of a long, drawn out, high profile trial in which the surviving families re-live their misery, the criminals would be simply incarcerated.

And once again: The exclusive role of the death penalty is not to deter crime. In fact, its main purpose is as punishment for crime..that's why it's called a death SENTENCE. A judge sentences you to it, or he could sentence you to prison. It's a punishment, as well as an aid to prosecution. You are ignorant to stay blind to these lines of thought.

I didn't say "eye for an eye" in the argument above. But how about, "punishment that fits the crime?" Should punishment fit the crime in our society? What do you think?

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattTheSkywalker:
RoidDog,

You are simply spouting other people's argument.

The word deterrent has many meanings. Know any DA's? Any prosecutors? I'm guessing you don't. I know several, and they love the death penalty for exactly the reason I described above. So do cops - you'd be amazed how fast confessions come out when the "needle" is "off the table." Why is this bad? The trial system is already backed up - generally it can take over a year for a case to go to trial, despite the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial. This is a huge service to prosecutors, and cops, and a money saver to the rest of us.

Example - the recent Wendy's massacre - both defendants have already expressed willingness to plead guilty and accept life sentences if the DP is withdrawn. (DA hasn't decided - other factors in play also)So instead of a long, drawn out, high profile trial in which the surviving families re-live their misery, the criminals would be simply incarcerated.

And once again: The exclusive role of the death penalty is not to deter crime. In fact, its main purpose is as punishment for crime..that's why it's called a death SENTENCE. A judge sentences you to it, or he could sentence you to prison. It's a punishment, as well as an aid to prosecution. You are ignorant to stay blind to these lines of thought.

I didn't say "eye for an eye" in the argument above. But how about, "punishment that fits the crime?" Should punishment fit the crime in our society? What do you think?

This is not meant as a flame, but are you in school? First philosophy class?
Stay with it and you may learn how to see other sides of things, not just the one your emotions are leaving visible.

---

Grant was by far the better man of the two but floundered as a political leader. I feel that Bush will look to the leaders in the Congress and Senate for guidance rather than trying to be a leader in his own right. This will probably lead to a polorization of the parties.

The polorizing issues will be the partial birth abortion bill, I for one support it, even though I have centrist beliefs. Another will be the capital gains tax bill. It should be an interesting four years no doubt.

[This message has been edited by mrbill (edited December 16, 2000).]

Wow! A 2 post skewering. That was fast.

Now all that's left for you to do is go over to Monster's awards post and vote me "biggest asshole."

Thanks for playing.

In 1991, Bush Sr had the highest approval ratings of any President ever. Predicting how long he lasts is anyone's guess. But your argument could well be true.

The Death Penalty thing again: it isn't only supposed to deter crime. That's the simple anti-DP argument that really is meritless.

Along those lines, we could say"

Life sentences don't deter crimes. So no more life for murderers. Let's take it even further: Jail doesn't deter crime, so, no more jail. Sounds crazy doesn't it? Well, that's the same argument the anti-DP people use, and it is baseless.

The death penalty, lets see the avg time on death row with appeals is around 10 years or so (as a guess), the avg life in prison for a life sentence is around 40 years if convicted at say 20 for murder and such.

Now at an avg of 30-35 thousand dollars a year to support one prisoner, not counting their own appeals, for the lifer that equates to 1.4 million per lifer. At the same rate of support plus legal fee's for 10 years that is 350k plus about 20-30k for legal fees (which is an extreme number, imo) plus 10 dollars in chemical, or 1.50 for a rope or 10 bucks for a few thousand amps. Well, you can see which one is cheaper.

And why should the worst human on this planet live better than most people. He would get tv, 3 squares a day, a place to live, all the sex he wants and all for free. That is not right.

Does the death penalty have much of a deterring effect? Not like it used to when there were public executions and the sentence was carried out at sunrise following sentencing. If we brought back public execution and swift execution of the punishment (and why not the accused have a right to a speedy, so why should we not also have the right to a speedy execution of the sentence imposed.

If I was the prosecutor for the Wendy's case I would not agree to the plea. You did it you fry.

Same thing with the 8 execution murders in Wichita, KS over the last two weeks. Nuke the bastards.

quote:

---

Originally posted by chesty:
Okay, first off, I believe Bush will do well. He is the first president I have seen that actually seems like a person. He has his faults, but so do all of us. How many of us have had dui's or broken the law somehow. I believe most of us since most of us use steroids that are on this board. Anything economical wise that begins to happen good or bad is a direct result of previous presidencies.

The death penalty, lets see the avg time on death row with appeals is around 10 years or so (as a guess), the avg life in prison for a life sentence is around 40 years if convicted at say 20 for murder and such.

Now at an avg of 30-35 thousand dollars a year to support one prisoner, not counting their own appeals, for the lifer that equates to 1.4 million per lifer. At the same rate of support plus legal fee's for 10 years that is 350k plus about 20-30k for legal fees (which is an extreme number, imo) plus 10 dollars in chemical, or 1.50 for a rope or 10 bucks for a few thousand amps. Well, you can see which one is cheaper.

And why should the worst human on this planet live better than most people. He would get tv, 3 squares a day, a place to live, all the sex he wants and all for free. That is not right.

Does the death penalty have much of a deterring effect? Not like it used to when there were public executions and the sentence was carried out at sunrise following sentencing. If we brought back public execution and swift execution of the punishment (and why not the accused have a right to a speedy, so why should we not also have the right to a speedy execution of the sentence imposed.

If I was the prosecutor for the Wendy's case I would not agree to the plea. You did it you fry.

Same thing with the 8 execution murders in Wichita, KS over the last two weeks. Nuke the bastards.

Roiddog, do you know how to spell, I see a lot of mistakes in your writing and it doesn't sound all that intelligent. You bash Bush Jr., you try to outwit and slam Matt, while doing nothing more than showing your ignorance in these matters. I don't mind heated debates, but debassing and derogatory responses are the sign of someone who cannot take critiscm of their ideas. Which I am sure is not the case with you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by roidog420:
Do I know how to spell??? LOL! Thats a good one there skippy! O you spelled my name wrong by the way duncecap!!!

---

Uh, actually, YOU spelled your name wrong. You are "roid dog," aren't you? If you spell it with only one "d," then that would make you "roy dog."

Learn to spell, Roy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Warik:
Uh, actually, YOU spelled your name wrong. You are "roid dog," aren't you? If you spell it with only one "d," then that would make you "roy dog."

Learn to spell, Roy.

-Warik

---

One of the other factors in the Wendy's case is the defense's contention that the defendants are mentally incompetent and as such cannot be executed under NY's death penalty law.

I know it's bullshit.

I feel pretty much the same way you do about the DP. However, in its current form, it is on the average more expensive to execute a criminal, because more often than not, the state ends up footing the defendant's legal bill. In essence, the state is paying for both sides of the courtroom arguments.

thinking a president will perform well because he seems like a real person is
pretty ignorant wouldnt you say?
if that was the case why didnt you vote for nader?he seems to be a alot more average than bush jr.
i guess you really fell for bush's image .bush walking around on his ranch wearing blue jeans and a leather jacket tossing the ball with his dog,oh yeah he's just a regular joe.
i love the republican party too dont get me wrong but so far bush's ideas are scary.
a 1.3 trillion dollar tax cut out of the national budget is sure to push us into the final step of recession.when microsoft reports a decrease in profits you can imagine how smaller companies are feeling it.
dot coms are dieing every minute,and high tech comps are building headquarters overseas to cut costs.the stock market is falling faster than a kamikazi.
bush's may have won many hearts with his tax cut plan,and people will probably enjoy it this year but you will all feel that 1.3 trillion loss next year that is 100%.

Most of the more liberal folks on this board seem to be in their 20's.

Its the old saying "If you are not a liberal before 30, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative by 35 then you have no brain"

It's all part of life......

s00uurrjerk

Regarding Microsoft: They announced that their earnings MAY be lower than predicted. Did you ever consider the possibilty that Bill Gates and Co. floated that statement so that he could buy back a larger share of the company for less money?

If you ignored that possibility, you aren't that familiar with Microsoft. They use a concept called FUD (fear uncertainty and doubt) routinely in their dealings with other companies, the market, and especially the government.

As far as dot-coms dying - so many of these companies only came into existence because venture capitalists were ignorant enough to fund things like "pets.com". Venture capitalists as a group are clueless about technology. They just employed the herd mentality dealing with the Internet - everyone else is doing it, so let's join them. These companies never should have come into existence in the first place.

If you think that the economic sector is one of strict integrity and truth telling, you are quite mistaken. Even the top Wall Street places are havens of lies and theft. Did you ever notice how much control "analysts" have over the market? All tehy do is say something on CNBC and people jump. The overwhelming majority of these people have never run a business, and their cluelesness about things like FUD keeps it going.

As for Bush - he definitely seemed a lot more personable than Gore. I voted for Bush because Gore is truly out of touch with our military...and he planned to ride into DC on the backs of the poor when we both know he didn't give a shit about them. Gore ran a nice FUD campaign to the poor, blacks, and senior citizens.

Yes, if you factor in the prosecution costs it could get up there quick, but they don't pay the da's and judges a whole lot of money.

Tax cut does not mean spending the surplus unless you mean increasing operating costs to wear you operate in the red. No self-respecting company or private person would do that because of the consequences. So why should the gov't? They should never have taken our money in the first place. I don't like this idea of redistribution of wealth. It is only redistributed to the top.

Clinton doesn't want the inheritance tax taken away because the gov't will lose too much money? WTF, didn't those people earn that money and land and whatever else? Doesn't it belong to the heirs of the owner's? Basically the gov't has legalized the theft of money and assets when it benfits them.

We should really be studying the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. It so greatly mirrors this country. Yes, I agree that we have a lot better communication and such, but on the whole it is the principles by which the Roman Empire fell that we will someday fall to, unless we change it and soon.

Look at our Congress and the Roman Senate is there that much difference? How about between the Emperor and the President.