Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos: A politics thread

by **ashton** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 15:27:32

The main problem with the death penalty is that the most common way for death row inmates to die is old age.

We're too squeamish about killing people to have a real death penalty (as in: someone sentenced to death gets a review of their trial, and if everything is copacetic they're dead within a year or two of their conviction) so we should just call the whole thing off. We would save a lot of money. We'd also be putting ourselves in better company.

by **allentown** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 16:24:26

ashton wrote:The main problem with the death penalty is that the most common way for death row inmates to die is old age.

We're too squeamish about killing people to have a real death penalty (as in: someone sentenced to death gets a review of their trial, and if everything is copacetic they're dead within a year or two of their conviction) so we should just call the whole thing off. We would save a lot of money. We'd also be putting ourselves in better company.

I would say the main problem with the death penalty is the number of innocents found on death row by DNA testing and groups like the Innocense Project. I would say the racial skewing of death sentences is another very large problem as is the skewing towards murderers represented by public defenders in jurisdictions where public defenders aren't payed enough to put on a very thorough defense.

by **lethal** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 16:31:04

Trent Steele wrote:
cshort wrote:
Trent Steele wrote:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40909822/

Go ahead and try to make a case for the death penalty.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/14/co ... daughters/

Terrible case for sure. Unfortunately, there is no real way to selectively apply the death penalty such that you "get it right" 100% of the time.

I should add that my opposition to it really isn't on absolute moral grounds (i.e., we shouldn't kill others) but on the legal impossibility of ensuring that we're killing the "right" people (i.e., those that, you know, actually committed the crime). The criminal judicial system, particularly at the state level, is an utter disgrace.

The guy in Texas wasn't up for the death penalty though. 75 year sentence.

by **pacino** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 19:19:24

by **pacino** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 19:27:47

btw, immigration enforcement works when you go after the undocumented who are committing crimes.

by **TenuredVulture** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 19:38:16

VoxOrion wrote:Wouldn't legislation covering all of the above (requiring transparency) accomplish that? I don't think individual salaries of rank and file employees should be published, but what about non-salary benefits?

Public employees in Arkansas do have their salary available as public information. I don't know about non-salary benefits though. I don't think it's all that uncommon either.

by **The Nightman Cometh** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 21:31:32

You can look up the salary of most government workers in NJ too

by **Houshphandzadeh** » Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:15:47

My HR just sent out an e-mail saying that social security withholding was going down 2% this year and that we should all see more money in our paychecks starting soon.

Is social security tax being reduced or will there just be less money in our refunds?

by **Bucky** » Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:47:03

Dude, where ya been. It's the 2011 "tax holiday". Instead of 6.2% being withheld for SS, it'll be 4.2%, so that's money in your pocket. So it's a 2% raise courtesy of Uncle Sam.

One thing that befuddles me is that this is always referred to as a "2 %" tax decrease. It's like a 30% decrease- I'm surprised it hasn't been spun that way.

by **Woody** » Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:48:55

Let's not further confuse middle america, bucky.

BUT YEAH, FUCK YOU OBAMA YOU SOCIALIST PIG

by **Grotewold** » Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:49:47

It is funneled offshore, to where he was born

by **drsmooth** » Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:50:17

Bucky wrote:Dude, where ya been. It's the 2011 "tax holiday". Instead of 6.2% being withheld for SS, it'll be 4.2%, so that's money in your pocket. So it's a 2% raise courtesy of Uncle Sam.

One thing that befuddles me is that this is always referred to as a "2 %" tax decrease. It's like a 30% decrease- I'm surprised it hasn't been spun that way.

~one week's pay

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Jan 05, 2011 12:24:33

JH said there's no way this would happen.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Jan 05, 2011 12:41:01

TenuredVulture wrote:JH said there's no way this would happen.

jerseyhoya wrote:I have as good of a chance of being the nominee as Bachmann.

Paul, stop reading RedState, or at least stop taking it seriously.

Referring to this? Does she get to be the nominee automatically if she runs?

She's got all the negatives Palin possesses, and 1/10th the media cache. Other people who might run for the GOP nomination: Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, Gary Bauer, Alan Keyes. None of them will be the nominee.

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Jan 05, 2011 12:56:51

jerseyhoya wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:JH said there's no way this would happen.

jerseyhoya wrote:I have as good of a chance of being the nominee as Bachmann.

Paul, stop reading RedState, or at least stop taking it seriously.

Referring to this? Does she get to be the nominee automatically if she runs?

She's got all the negatives Palin possesses, and 1/10th the media cache. Other people who might run for the GOP nomination: Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, Gary Bauer, Alan Keyes. None of them will be the nominee.

Bachman clearly has a better chance of being the GOP nominee than you.

But you know what's really funny? TPM and Redstate are so similar to each other.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Jan 05, 2011 14:32:21

Over 10% of the Dem House Caucus votes for someone other than Nancy as speaker. Unity!

by **allentown** » Wed Jan 05, 2011 15:16:42

TenuredVulture wrote:JH said there's no way this would happen.

This gives her more media time and permits increased fundraising. I doubt even she thinks she has a 1% chance at the nomination. With massive fundraising come politcal power, as DeMint has shown.

by **pacino** » Wed Jan 05, 2011 18:44:46

jerseyhoya wrote:Over 10% of the Dem House Caucus votes for someone other than Nancy as speaker. Unity!

Wow, she squeaked by...?

watch tucker carlson:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSLhxLoNJik[/youtube]

by **drsmooth** » Wed Jan 05, 2011 18:52:47

pacino wrote:
watch tucker carlson:

tube: "favorite bar?!?!"

not one of them is smart enough to be embarrassed

43's reading list is more respectable than all theirs put together

jhoya's reading list is WAY more respectable

all of them should hope they work for him, if they're lucky

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Jan 05, 2011 19:20:48

pacino wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Over 10% of the Dem House Caucus votes for someone other than Nancy as speaker. Unity!

Wow, she squeaked by...?

No she was 45 votes short of squeaking by.

It was the most votes a party's choice for speaker has failed to receive in 88 years though.

Archived

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos: A politics thread