Democrats, Pacifism, and Felons

[JoeB131]

So what have we learned?

1. I am never less than accurate.

2. You....not so much.

What we've learned.

1) You're a crazy person.

2) You have serious problems with honesty, and seem to want to warp the world around your own facts.

3) Most of your thinking is fallacious, at best.

 

[PoliticalChic]

3. Then there was Illinois Democrat Governor Pat Quinn..."To have a consistent, perfect death penalty system ... that's impossible in our state," Quinn told reporters. "I think it's the right and just thing to abolish the death penalty and punish those who commit heinous crimes -- evil people -- with life in prison without parole and no chance of release."
Illinois governor signs death penalty ban | Reuters

And again, here is where you are being disingenous.

It was a REPUBLICAN governor, George Ryan who suspended all executions in the state of Illinois after 14 death penalty cases were overturned when it was determined by DNA evidence or further investigation that the person convicted didn't do what they were accused of.

One particularly notorious case was that of Rolando Cruz, convicted and condemned - twice- of killing a 10 year old after another man- Brian Dugan- confessed to the crime. In the middle of Cruz's third trial- largely considered a travesty- Dugan's DNA was finally tested against the evidence and it was determined beyond all doubt he had killed the victim.

After a board appointed by Ryan admitted that the system was so flawed that there was no way to determine with absolute certainty that an innocent person wouldn't be executed by mistake, Ryan was the one who commutted all 168 death sentences in IL to life imprisonment.

All Quinn did was admit that the system was still not fixed and couldn't be fixed. Ironically, one of the guys who benefited from this was Brian Dugan, who was finally convicted of that murder, but had his death sentence set aside.

1. Haven't you yet learned that I am never disingenuous?

You mean simply that you don't agree with me.
Nor have I suggested that I can force you to be right.

Try to be accurate.


2. " the system was so flawed that there was no way to determine with absolute certainty that an innocent person wouldn't be executed by mistake, Ryan was the one who commutted all 168 death sentences in IL to life imprisonment."

I am so very glad you wrote that....as that is a direction in which I would like the discussion to go


a. Liberals are child-like, in imagining that their wishes represent reality.
Look closely at what you wrote: it means that unless "absolute certainty that an innocent person wouldn't be executed by mistake," the death penalty must be banned.

b. How well this verifies what I have so often written about Liberals, their belief in Utopia here on earth.

c. Short of perfection....ban the death penalty. Absurd.


d. "...so we correlated each year's executions to the following year's murders and found the results to be even more dramatic. The association was significant at the .00003 level, which meant the odds against the random happening are longer than 34,000 to one. Each execution was associated with 74 fewer murders the following year."
Capital Punishment Works - WSJ.com


So that one hypothetically innocent "convicted murderer"....compared to 74 innocents who will face death at the hands of another murderer....

Clear proof of the insanity of allowing Liberals any where near the power of elected office.
How many innocent deaths is Liberal Pat Brown to be held responsible for as a result of " parole for 377 convicted murders,..."?



My OP was aimed at indicting Liberals is that manner.
Thank you for helping me to prove it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Liberals are pacifists AND authoritarians (fascists, communists, dictators, despots).

PICK ONE PC, because they cannot coexist in personality markers...


While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

Liberals are so ugly, they should be made to stand in front of pharmacies to make people sick.

 

[JoeB131]

[


My OP was aimed at indicting Liberals is that manner.
Thank you for helping me to prove it.

Wading through your verbal diarhea isn't worth the effort.

the fact is, the Death Penalty isn't a deterrent. If it was, Texas would have the lowest crime rate in the country intead of one of the highest.

IL abolished the Death Penalty BECAUSE we came too close to executing innocent people. Period.

In fact, we had to free more people from IL's death row than we actually got around to executing.

That's how flawed the system was.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. Following WWI, and reaching an apex during the Vietnam War, the Left has generally been hostile to anything having to do with war, often embracing pacifism.

When you start out your argument with a statement that isn't true, it's hard to take the rest of your OCD argument seriously.

A Democrat got us into WWI over Republican objections.
A Democrat got us into WWII over Republican objections. (Although Pearl Harbor sort of ended the debate.)
A Democrat got us into Korea, and it took a Republican to get us out.
A Democrat got us into Vietnam...

Now, true, AFTER Vietnam, the Democrats became more pacifistic. And unfortunately, that gave the GOP an opening with Nixon and Reagan to go back to doing what they did before- gutting the middle class and undoing the New Deal.

1. In the quote you provide, "Left has generally been hostile to anything having to do with war, often embracing pacifism."

2. Many universities have departments of “peace studies.” “The field of Peace Studies is alternatively known as Peace and Conflict Studies, Conflict Analysis and Resolution, and Peace and Justice Studies. It is concerned with the roots of conflict, the conditions for peace, and, ultimately, the daunting challenge of realizing peace on our little planet. To that end, if you major in Peace Studies, you'll read about and (hopefully) add to the large body of scholarship on the causes and prevention of war and how to create a more just and peaceful world.”
Peace Studies


3. A central theme of Leftism is pacifism, largely because no welfare state can afford a strong military. Europeans came to rely on America to fight the world’s evils and even to defend their countries. This means that ‘equality’ trumps morality.


4. Everything associated with the military is held in disrepute: nationalism, a strong military, honoring the military, referring to military dead as heroes. And even referring to anything as “evil.”

a. Since the end of WWII, the Left has opposed fighting almost any evil. Even when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the Left opposed military intervention. What could be more moral than opposing Saddam’s take-over of a nation, and considering the strategic importance of the area, and even the fact that the UN supported the use of the military…still, two-thirds of the House Democrats, and 46 of 56 Democrat Senators voted against the war.

b. Pacifism, the antithesis of nationalism, is a major attraction of both the United Nations and the World Court, both venerated by the Left. These vaunted institutions are opposed to all nationalism, except, of course, Palestinian.

5. The generalization of pacifism leads to the Left’s view of nationalism, and then to contempt for the idea of American exceptionalism, of an America which is prepared to use force to fight what it deems as evil, an affirmation of traditional Judeo-Christian values which include support for the death penalty.

And, of course that is the theme of the OP.

What was/were our vital national interest(s) that made going to war with Iraq in 1991 necessary?

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's interesting that anyone could turn the idea of someone being hostile towards war into a case for disparagement and ridicule of that someone.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So what have we learned?

1. I am never less than accurate.

2. You....not so much.

What we've learned.

1) You're a crazy person.

2) You have serious problems with honesty, and seem to want to warp the world around your own facts.

3) Most of your thinking is fallacious, at best.

1)" You're a crazy person."
I’m not crazy….mom had me tested.

2." You have serious problems with honesty,..."
No doubt you felt the need to post this, as I just proved that you are "disingenuous."
Now you've proven it yet again.

3."Most of your thinking is fallacious,"
Yet, you had no success in showing same...

Poor Erroneous Joe.


(...but you are getting back to your old self. Taking vitamins?)

As I construct cogent posts proving my premises, it is no wonder the best you can do is this post.


Isn't it true that Larry, Moe and Shemp all did better on the SAT’s than you did?

 

[PoliticalChic]

[


My OP was aimed at indicting Liberals is that manner.
Thank you for helping me to prove it.

Wading through your verbal diarhea isn't worth the effort.

the fact is, the Death Penalty isn't a deterrent. If it was, Texas would have the lowest crime rate in the country intead of one of the highest.

IL abolished the Death Penalty BECAUSE we came too close to executing innocent people. Period.

In fact, we had to free more people from IL's death row than we actually got around to executing.

That's how flawed the system was.

"the fact is, the Death Penalty isn't a deterrent. If it was, Texas would have the lowest crime rate in the country intead (sic) of one of the highest"


Of course logic isn't your strong suit: Texas could simply have more murderers to contend with.


It's telling that you were afraid to include the conclusion of the study I posted.

 

[Pogo]

Your entire premise is fallacious. You keep dropping the term "evil" without defining it or even proving its existence. This is petitio principii or "begging the question". You're assuming some universal definition that is in no way established; your point is based on a wispy emotion rather than reason.

Not to mention, you've taken the position that war is superior to peace, so your entire OP commited suicide before it started. Were it not for tangents on Illinois governors you wouldn't even have a thread here.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your entire premise is fallacious. You keep dropping the term "evil" without defining it or even proving its existence. This is petitio principii or "begging the question". You're assuming some universal definition that is in no way established; your point is based on a wispy emotion rather than reason.

Not to mention, you've taken the position that war is superior to peace, so your entire OP commited suicide before it started. Were it not for tangents on Illinois governors you wouldn't even have a thread here.

1. If you intend to resort to teenage hyperbole, I expect you to at least wear a "Hello, Kitty" backpack.
"Your entire premise is fallacious. You keep dropping the term "evil"..."

Assuming you refer to the OP....I seem to recall but one usage of the term "evil."



2. This is where it is used:
"Actually, pacifism is immoral, as it stands in the way of dealing with evil."

You....in your school-marm persona demand:"You keep dropping the term "evil" without defining it or even proving its existence."

I don't believe any but you will have any difficulty understanding either its usage nor its existence.



3. "Not to mention, you've taken the position that war is superior to peace,..."

No doubt even you, ol' biddy, won't claim that war is never in order.




4. "Were it not for tangents on Illinois governors you wouldn't even have a thread here."
You are mistaken.

Were it not for the propensity of Liberals to refuse to deal correctly with evil....yes, murder is evil, ....then there would be no point to the thread.



5. You appear to be one of those really boring people who use their fingers to air-quote as they speak.

Have I hit the nail on your head?

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's interesting that anyone could turn the idea of someone being hostile towards war into a case for disparagement and ridicule of that someone.

Although I hate to encourage you, I must note that, since you have attempted to keep up with me, respond to my posts....there is a marked improvement in your work.
It is almost adult.



What have I done???

 

[PoliticalChic]

1
How 'bout this...

"Supreme Court Sonia Sotomayor wants to give jailbirds the right to vote. It's her opinion that the federal Voting Rights Act can be used to force states to allow voting by currently imprisoned felons. Ms. Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in a 2006 felon-voting case should make senators extremely wary of confirming her for the high court."
Democrats want to let convicted felons and felons in prison vote! Do you think this should be allowed or not?

The big lies that rightwingers tell on USMB are usually easy to deal with. Some posters however, like to make the task a bit more challenging by shotgunning the board with a volley of little lies, buried in the clutter and underbrush of their habitually interminable posts,

like the one above.

The claim is that Judge Sotomayor wants to give felons the vote. The claim is made as if that is Judge Sotomayor's personal opinion and preference, and it is 'supported' by a link, which gives the lie an air of credibility...

...unless of course one actually reads the link, and then follows up by tracking down the original source material from which the lie is constructed.

Let's look at what Sotomayor actually SAID in her dissent:

I join in Judge Parker's dissent, and write this separate opinion only to emphasize one point. I fear that the many pages of the majority opinion and concurrences — and the many pages of the dissent that are necessary to explain why they are wrong — may give the impression that this case is in some way complex. It is not.

It is plain to anyone reading the Voting Rights Act that it applies to all "voting 368*368 qualification." And it is equally plain that § 5-106 disqualifies a group of people from voting. These two propositions should constitute the entirety of our analysis. Section 2 of the Act by its unambiguous terms subjects felony disenfranchisement and all other voting qualifications to its coverage.

The duty of a judge is to follow the law, not to question its plain terms. I do not believe that Congress wishes us to disregard the plain language of any statute or to invent exceptions to the statutes it has created. The majority's "wealth of persuasive evidence" that Congress intended felony disenfranchisement laws to be immune from scrutiny under § 2 of the Act, Maj. Op. at 322, includes not a single legislator actually saying so. But even if Congress had doubts about the wisdom of subjecting felony disenfranchisement laws to the results test of § 2, I trust that Congress would prefer to make any needed changes itself, rather than have courts do so for it.

I respectfully dissent.

...the italics are mine. Is she objecting to felons being denied the vote? Anywhere? Or, is it that she is objecting to what is commonly called 'legislating from the bench'?

You tell us.

hayden v. pataki - Google Scholar

Let's stop the little lies too.

That is open to question.

"Felon voting has not been regulated federally although some argue that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act can be applied to felon disenfranchisement and that Congress has the authority to legislate felon voting in federal elections."
State Felon Voting Laws - Felon Voting - ProCon.org

 

[emptystep]

PC, I feel for you, I really do. And because I do I have included this little video.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIfzyYT1Oho]Agent Smith - Why do you persist? - YouTube[/ame]

OK, that might have been just a little creepy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, I feel for you, I really do. And because I do I have included this little video.

Agent Smith - Why do you persist? - YouTube

OK, that might have been just a little creepy.

Far more constructive would be an attempt to respond to the OP.....

...on second thought, I've seen your work: it would hardly be constructive.


Stick with youtube vids.

 

[Pogo]

Your entire premise is fallacious. You keep dropping the term "evil" without defining it or even proving its existence. This is petitio principii or "begging the question". You're assuming some universal definition that is in no way established; your point is based on a wispy emotion rather than reason.

Not to mention, you've taken the position that war is superior to peace, so your entire OP commited suicide before it started. Were it not for tangents on Illinois governors you wouldn't even have a thread here.

1. If you intend to resort to teenage hyperbole, I expect you to at least wear a "Hello, Kitty" backpack.
"Your entire premise is fallacious. You keep dropping the term "evil"..."

Assuming you refer to the OP....I seem to recall but one usage of the term "evil."

What you recall is irrelevant; I actually I searched the thread looking for anywhere it might have been quantified or validated, and there was none. It was way more than one appearance, although I didn't keep count. I don't have a monopoly on the "search page" function.

2. This is where it is used:
"Actually, pacifism is immoral, as it stands in the way of dealing with evil."

You....in your school-marm persona demand:"You keep dropping the term "evil" without defining it or even proving its existence."

I don't believe any but you will have any difficulty understanding either its usage nor its existence.

So -- two ad hominems rare, and an argumentum ad populum dressed. You want fries with that?

3. "Not to mention, you've taken the position that war is superior to peace,..."

No doubt even you, ol' biddy, won't claim that war is never in order.

Ah, moving the goalposts for dessert. Fine choice. We declare an absolute (e.g. "pacifisim is immoral") and then want to start retrofitting exceptions. Hilarious.

4. "Were it not for tangents on Illinois governors you wouldn't even have a thread here."
You are mistaken.

Were it not for the propensity of Liberals to refuse to deal correctly with evil....yes, murder is evil, ....then there would be no point to the thread.

-- Aaaaand right back to the circular reasoning we started with. This is where I came in.

5. You appear to be one of those really boring people who use their fingers to air-quote as they speak.

Have I hit the nail on your head?

Is that what you call it? I thought it was a Marcel Marceau impression.

Hey, I'm just pointing out your OP-eror has no clothes. Seems to me a valid argument should start with a valid premise.
But maybe I assume too much, i.e. that a valid argument was even what you were going for here. My mistake. Carry on.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your entire premise is fallacious. You keep dropping the term "evil" without defining it or even proving its existence. This is petitio principii or "begging the question". You're assuming some universal definition that is in no way established; your point is based on a wispy emotion rather than reason.

Not to mention, you've taken the position that war is superior to peace, so your entire OP commited suicide before it started. Were it not for tangents on Illinois governors you wouldn't even have a thread here.

1. If you intend to resort to teenage hyperbole, I expect you to at least wear a "Hello, Kitty" backpack.
"Your entire premise is fallacious. You keep dropping the term "evil"..."

Assuming you refer to the OP....I seem to recall but one usage of the term "evil."

What you recall is irrelevant; I actually I searched the thread looking for anywhere it might have been quantified or validated, and there was none. It was way more than one appearance, although I didn't keep count. I don't have a monopoly on the "search page" function.



So -- two ad hominems rare, and an argumentum ad populum dressed. You want fries with that?





Ah, moving the goalposts for dessert. Fine choice. We declare an absolute (e.g. "pacifisim is immoral") and then want to start retrofitting exceptions. Hilarious.

4. "Were it not for tangents on Illinois governors you wouldn't even have a thread here."
You are mistaken.

Were it not for the propensity of Liberals to refuse to deal correctly with evil....yes, murder is evil, ....then there would be no point to the thread.

-- Aaaaand right back to the circular reasoning we started with. This is where I came in.

5. You appear to be one of those really boring people who use their fingers to air-quote as they speak.

Have I hit the nail on your head?

Is that what you call it? I thought it was a Marcel Marceau impression.

Hey, I'm just pointing out your OP-eror has no clothes. Seems to me a valid argument should start with a valid premise.
But maybe I assume too much, i.e. that a valid argument was even what you were going for here. My mistake. Carry on.

You try far too hard to be clever....

Face it....you're not equipped to be so.

 

[emptystep]

PC, I feel for you, I really do. And because I do I have included this little video.

Agent Smith - Why do you persist? - YouTube

OK, that might have been just a little creepy.

Far more constructive would be an attempt to respond to the OP.....

...on second thought, I've seen your work: it would hardly be constructive.


Stick with youtube vids.

I just responded to every post you have every made. What can be better than that. (Sorry, don't have a youtube video for this one.)

 

[Pogo]

1. If you intend to resort to teenage hyperbole, I expect you to at least wear a "Hello, Kitty" backpack.
"Your entire premise is fallacious. You keep dropping the term "evil"..."

Assuming you refer to the OP....I seem to recall but one usage of the term "evil."

What you recall is irrelevant; I actually I searched the thread looking for anywhere it might have been quantified or validated, and there was none. It was way more than one appearance, although I didn't keep count. I don't have a monopoly on the "search page" function.



So -- two ad hominems rare, and an argumentum ad populum dressed. You want fries with that?





Ah, moving the goalposts for dessert. Fine choice. We declare an absolute (e.g. "pacifisim is immoral") and then want to start retrofitting exceptions. Hilarious.




-- Aaaaand right back to the circular reasoning we started with. This is where I came in.

5. You appear to be one of those really boring people who use their fingers to air-quote as they speak.

Have I hit the nail on your head?

Is that what you call it? I thought it was a Marcel Marceau impression.

Hey, I'm just pointing out your OP-eror has no clothes. Seems to me a valid argument should start with a valid premise.
But maybe I assume too much, i.e. that a valid argument was even what you were going for here. My mistake. Carry on.

You try far too hard to be clever....

Face it....you're not equipped to be so.

For a guy who's "not equipped" it didn't take much to be effective, did it?
I accept your concession.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's interesting that anyone could turn the idea of someone being hostile towards war into a case for disparagement and ridicule of that someone.

Although I hate to encourage you, I must note that, since you have attempted to keep up with me, respond to my posts....there is a marked improvement in your work.
It is almost adult.



What have I done???

Sitting at the side of kid's table that allows you to overhear what the adults are talking about seems to have helped you some.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1
How 'bout this...

"Supreme Court Sonia Sotomayor wants to give jailbirds the right to vote. It's her opinion that the federal Voting Rights Act can be used to force states to allow voting by currently imprisoned felons. Ms. Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in a 2006 felon-voting case should make senators extremely wary of confirming her for the high court."
Democrats want to let convicted felons and felons in prison vote! Do you think this should be allowed or not?

The big lies that rightwingers tell on USMB are usually easy to deal with. Some posters however, like to make the task a bit more challenging by shotgunning the board with a volley of little lies, buried in the clutter and underbrush of their habitually interminable posts,

like the one above.

The claim is that Judge Sotomayor wants to give felons the vote. The claim is made as if that is Judge Sotomayor's personal opinion and preference, and it is 'supported' by a link, which gives the lie an air of credibility...

...unless of course one actually reads the link, and then follows up by tracking down the original source material from which the lie is constructed.

Let's look at what Sotomayor actually SAID in her dissent:

I join in Judge Parker's dissent, and write this separate opinion only to emphasize one point. I fear that the many pages of the majority opinion and concurrences — and the many pages of the dissent that are necessary to explain why they are wrong — may give the impression that this case is in some way complex. It is not.

It is plain to anyone reading the Voting Rights Act that it applies to all "voting 368*368 qualification." And it is equally plain that § 5-106 disqualifies a group of people from voting. These two propositions should constitute the entirety of our analysis. Section 2 of the Act by its unambiguous terms subjects felony disenfranchisement and all other voting qualifications to its coverage.

The duty of a judge is to follow the law, not to question its plain terms. I do not believe that Congress wishes us to disregard the plain language of any statute or to invent exceptions to the statutes it has created. The majority's "wealth of persuasive evidence" that Congress intended felony disenfranchisement laws to be immune from scrutiny under § 2 of the Act, Maj. Op. at 322, includes not a single legislator actually saying so. But even if Congress had doubts about the wisdom of subjecting felony disenfranchisement laws to the results test of § 2, I trust that Congress would prefer to make any needed changes itself, rather than have courts do so for it.

I respectfully dissent.

...the italics are mine. Is she objecting to felons being denied the vote? Anywhere? Or, is it that she is objecting to what is commonly called 'legislating from the bench'?

You tell us.

hayden v. pataki - Google Scholar

Let's stop the little lies too.

That is open to question.

"Felon voting has not been regulated federally although some argue that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act can be applied to felon disenfranchisement and that Congress has the authority to legislate felon voting in federal elections."
State Felon Voting Laws - Felon Voting - ProCon.org

The original 'question' here is whether or not it is honest to proclaim Judge Sotomayor to be in favor of letting felons vote based on her dissent in this case.

My counter-argument was that her dissent contained nothing material to that issue; her dissent was based entirely on separate issues unconnected to whatever her personal view is.