Where politics, religion, and laughter collide...

[Demonspell]

The Liberal Ten Commandments

Taken from the book The American Spectator's Enemies List, with a few updated references by myself:

1. Thou shalt not have no other gods before the federal government of the United States.
2. Thou shalt not make for thyself an idol in the form of anything on the earth, but worship the earth itself.
3. Thou shalt not take Jesse Jackson's, Bill Clinton's, or Richard Gephardt's name in vain.
4. Remember the anniversary of Roe v. Wade and keep it holy.
5. Honor thy mother, thy mother's boyfriend, thy father's boyfriend, etc.
6. Thou shalt not kill...criminals who hath been convicted of heinous crimes, but thou may kill human fetuses of all ages.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery...without a condom. This law applies to everyone, even thy ex-president.
8. Thou shalt not steal...except from the rich, from relatives with connections, or during a riot.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness...except when attempting to keep Clarence Thomas off the Supreme Court, John Ashcroft out of the Cabinet, or George W. Bush out of the Oval Office.
10. Thou shalt not covet anything that belongs to thy neighbor, except for the purpose of redistributing the wealth or if thy name is Clinton.

 

[Russell]

Hehe, wow I must liuve by those from now on Very good tho, wheredja get them?

 

[Lina]

Of course, anyone who follows politics and the news can switch those around to a "conservative ten commandments" that would be much more disgusting. But oh well, waste of time I guess.

 

[justus x]

More disgusting? Only through the fog of delusion that liberals walk around in, with their minds all freshly scrubbed and shiny.

 

[Lina]

Originally posted by justus x
More disgusting? Only through the fog of delusion that liberals walk around in, with their minds all freshly scrubbed and shiny.

Fog of delusion, eh? Didn't you say you believe in God? Interesting...

 

[dune_666]

Fog of delusion eh? What do you classify the belief that fraternal organizations will assist those that are unfortunate, utilization of the death penalty as a deterrent, the invisible hand, limitless rights to obtain weapons, racism, classism, sexism, and religious rhetoric as?

 

[Demonspell]

I believe in the death penalty. As for racism and sexism, individual attitudes are far more responsible for spreading the parctices than legal discrimination. And what liberals often forget is that wealth is a privilege, not an entitlement...

 

[Lina]

Originally posted by Demonspell
I believe in the death penalty.

What do you mean you "believe in the death penalty"? You do know that it's been proven to not deter crime, right? And that it costs MORE than sentencing someone to life in jail? And that our judicial system is far from fair? And that multiple people have been sentenced to the death penalty and were later freed because of newly available DNA evidence? And that a life in jail means getting buttfucked regularly rather than the death penalty which lets the criminal not have to suffer? But yet, you "believe in the death penalty"? It seems your response is a knee-jerk reaction and not a thought-out, researched position.

 

[Heliologue]

the "it costs more to kill a criminal than to keep him for life" is either an outdated datum or a common misbelief. I don't remember the exact figures, but the most current ones I read were that death is the the 5-6 digit figures, and life imprisonment was in the millions or above.

and of course the death penalty won't "deter" crime. We kill selected criminals because they have taken the life of someone else (I think murder-related crimes are the only capital ones, aside from treason... correct me if they're not, please), and therefore forfeit their own right to life. (speaking of which, i find it rather funny that the "liberals" who are against the death pentalty for being barbaric/unfair/etc are oftentimes the sames ones that support a mother's "right" to abort her child....hmm)

Murders are (usually) crimes of passion.... it's not like stealing a candy bar, where you can weigh the consequences vs. net gains, etc etc.

 

[Lina]

Originally posted by saturnix
the "it costs more to kill a criminal than to keep him for life" is either an outdated datum or a common misbelief. I don't remember the exact figures, but the most current ones I read were that death is the the 5-6 digit figures, and life imprisonment was in the millions or above.

Actually, you're wrong. When you include the cost of the trial process (including all the appeals, etc), the death penalty is more expensive. Phil Gramm (R-TX) was on one of the Sunday political shows debating this issue, and his response to this was, "Well, that's why we need to limit the appeals process." Yes, very good. We're debating taking someone's life, but let's not give them a fair trial.

and of course the death penalty won't "deter" crime. Murders are (usually) crimes of passion.... it's not like stealing a candy bar, where you can weigh the consequences vs. net gains, etc etc.

I'm not sure who you're arguing with here. I said that the death penalty does not deter. So we agree on that.

(speaking of which, i find it rather funny that the "liberals" who are against the death pentalty for being barbaric/unfair/etc are oftentimes the sames ones that support a mother's "right" to abort her child....hmm)

Yes, I've heard this before, and it can be switched around -- Republicans are for the death penalty and guns in the hands of children, but not abortion, so what's your point? The abortion argument comes down to your belief about at what point the "baby" becomes a life. To me, the life of some unborn fetus is not as meaningful/important/worthy as someone who has been alive for 35 years and who has family and friends and connections. I'd rather not get into this argument, because people's views on this are very deep-rooted and it would just be fruitless to have that debate.

I will say that if someone is absolutely without a doubt guilty (like McVeigh) I'm not gonna go hold a vigil and petition for his life. (Even though some people hold the very valid view that it is hypocritical for the government to kill, and that we are the last developed country to allow this, etc.) But it is so annoying how relatives of victims talk about the death penalty as being the only true revenge. I would much rather die and be relieved of the mind-numbing boredom and terrifying paranoia I would feel in jail for the rest of my life.

The fact that logistically it goes against everything Republicans stand for (a less-instrusive government, less taxes) proves that they just haven't thought it through. The words "justice," "retribution," etc, always get thrown around instead. But like I explained above, it doesn't even fulfill that.

 

[HoserHellspawn]

Heya.

I was once pro-choice, pro-capital punishment (the "KILL EVERYTHING" stance. I'm still pro-choice, but...)

I did a speech on the death penalty in grade... 10, I think... anyways, the key piece of research I uncovered and actually remember was (concuring with Lina) that it does in fact, cost more to execute a prisoner than keep him in jail for life, and it did surprise me a great deal, enough to destroy my planned pro-capital punishment argument going in. With the court cost, appeals process, and other assorted red tape involved, not to mention that they aren't often executed until several years after sentencing (Bundy didn't actually die until, like, 8 years or something after he was convicted, right?), it isn't cheaper at all.

The core of the death penalty really is revenge. Truth is, if it was 100% accurate (no executions of wrongful convicts), and more cost-effective than life inprisonment, I probably wouldn't oppose it in the least for murder cases, especially since it makes sure guys like Clifford Olsen and Paul Bernardo can't berate the public whenever they get a chance to get their writings out of prison, terrify us with their attempts at parole under the "faint hope clause", etc. etc. - they're dead, it's over.

But, that isn't the case. And if you look at the case of Guy Paul Morin (wrongfully convicted for murder, released years later by way of DNA evidence) and others like him... when all of the known facts are taken into consideration and personal motivations of revenge are put aside, the facts generally seem to show us being better off without the death penalty.

(Incidentally, this all was a Canadian perspective)

 

[Russell]

I must say I am against the death penalty as well, esecially when you have examples like John Wheat who's final statement was "I deeply regret what happened. I did not intentionally or knowingly harm anyone" or "I would like to say that I did not kill Bobby Lambert."

 

[Despot]

There are a lot of reasons why death penalty makes no sense. For example, most executions are performed in the name of god. There is even a priest there to comfort the inmates. Well if you read the bible you will come across a passage in the old testament that says that only god can create and terminate one's life. So what we have is ,essentially, a bunch of liars. That was vaguely the religious perspective of why death penalty makes no sense.
Than there is the financial perspective, which was discussed already, so I won't go into that.
Finally we come to the most important part, and that is the effectiveness of death penalty. What happens once a state executes somebody? Nothing. Most maniacs that kill people aren't gonna be very moved if one of their fellow maniacs is executed. If anything they will be inspired to kill more. Only people that get any sort of satisfaction from it are those who look at death penalty as a form of revenge.
So instead of killing these people why not put them to a good use. All those things that we test on poor rabbits and monkeys, we could be testing on living human beings. Plus tons of other medical research.
If I were in charge I would forbid all the media from talking about these people once they are sentenced. This would prevent cold-blooded killers from achieving something they all want. Celebrity status.