by Jack
One of the reasons places like Dubai, UAE and similar countries have next to no crime is the short time between arrest, conviction and the sentence being carried out. In part, this is why the families of murder victims are suing California to speed up executions. Some of the family members have been waiting for over 35 years for the convicted murderers to be executed and this is wrong on a number of levels. Endless, appeals and delays only adds to anguish of the victim’s family. They need closure, they deserve to see a final end to their ordeal. It’s not right for inmates to have limitless appeals that clog up the courts and at the taxpayers expense. And then there is the security issue. Convicted death row inmates pose a high risk to other inmates and prison staff because they have nothing to lose, they’re already sentenced to death. That high risk should be minimized too and the only way to do that is to carry out their death sentence.
California does not have infinite financial resources to do everything we, when we want. Although some liberals seem to think so. The reality is, we must prioritize our funds and spend them where it will do the most good. What good does spending a $100,000 a year to keep an inmate on death do anyone? Here they sit, day after day, month after month, in special high security, with specially prepared food and expensive 24 hr. security monitoring, oh and this is in addition to those legal costs I mention earlier! This is money that adds up to millions of dollars before they die of old age. That money could have gone to a far better purpose, but thanks to our bleeding heart liberals it’s going to keep a demented killer alive for decades. These are violent, irreparable, brain damaged psychopaths that deserve their death sentence.
Killers in California prisons cost us almost twice what other states pay and that’s another issue that really needs attention. Maybe Assemblyman Gallagher will look into this? Just a thought, but somebody sure needs too. We need to know what are we doing wrong that is costing so much money. I know we provide premium healthcare, conjugal visits, TV, recreations activities and even a law library and I have to question that too. It’s not like these killers on death row are some kind of precious asset to society. They earned the death sentence by special circumstances. . . we should never lose sight of that.
I hope this latest lawsuit does some good to speed up the process, but I seriously doubt it will. They’re up against a whole liberal mindset dedicated to the concept of life in prison, not executions. Unfortunately, they have our taxpayer dollars to use against the plaintiffs in this suit. I hate that part…they should have zero State funding, let those who are stalling the executions do what the victim’s families have to do, let them raise the money on their own.
Justice delayed is justice not served.
There’s a one-word answer for the delays: Lawyers.
Should be a time limit for appeals, then swift justice. Period.
Barbarian. And I thought you did not approve of Islamic anything?
The rest of us, being able to learn from scientific and technological advances, are just the tiniest bit appalled to realize how many innocent people we’ve executed in the last 20 years.
So the executions will cease, for the time being, and you can just repair to your cave and nurse your troglodyte frustrations.
Libby, I firmly believe that executions are not barbaric when done according to law/reason and done humanely. But, they ought to be done in a timely manner, using all our safeguards, but with a limit on the number of appeals possible. If we can’t do that, you win. Then we should do away with the death penalty and cut the cost of keeping them. We should be paying closer to what other states pay per inmate.
But Jack … you do not address the issue of the wrongly convicted … that point which I bring up.
Barbarian.
Jack, I thought you answered Post 4 correctly:
But, they ought to be done in a timely manner, using all our safeguards, but with a limit on the number of appeals possible. If we can’t do that, you win. Then we should do away with the death penalty
It should also be noted forgiving people do have tendency to lose their wanting to forgive when murder and torture affects them directly.
Geez. None of you will look it in the face. Due process notwithstanding, we HAVE executed innocent people.
If you propose to persist with executions in the face of this, you are barbarians. If you are not, I’ve won the point. Admit it, and stop posting this kind of … crap.
And Harold … these traumatized relatives, victims, what-have-you are the people chiefly culpable in our execution of innocents. People out for vengeance are notoriously indiscriminate about who suffers their wrath. And catering to them has nothing to do with justice. It is, if fact, barbaric.
I would rather be a barbarian than a victim any day.
There is no evidence that the death penalty deters crime or that it saves money; on the contrary, the death penalty is much more expensive than life without parole precisely because of the lengthy trials (which are necessary to ensure that people are not wrongly executed). If you’re concerned about decreasing prison costs, you should support the repeal of the death penalty.
Aaron: “I would rather be a barbarian than a victim any day.”
Wow. It’s like you’re the Bizarro version of Doctor Who.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fdb_FbxNow8
Dalek: “Then prove yourself, Doctor. What are you: coward, or killer?”
The Doctor: “Coward. Any day.”
“I would rather be a barbarian than a victim any day.”
Now there’s a concise synthesis of the conservative position if ever I heard one.
The thing is Aaron … how much control do you really have over which side of the ledger you land on?
I must have missed something. Who here is asserting that the death penalty deters crime? The only I can see is the perpetual jerk.
Correction/Clarification to #12 The only one I see who mentions this non-issue is the perpetual jerk.
And I should feel sorry for this murderer being alive by liberal compassion and costing taxpayers untold amounts of dollars in court?
Left-wing idiots never see the whole picture.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2828274/Oscar-Pistorius-not-early-release-hellhole-prison-electronic-tag-fitted-false-leg.html
Pie Guevara: “I must have missed something. Who here is asserting that the death penalty deters crime? The only I can see is the perpetual jerk.”
I guess it was too much to expect that you would read and comprehend the first line of Jack’s article:
“One of the reasons places like Dubai, UAE and similar countries have next to no crime is the short time between arrest, conviction and the sentence being carried out.”
Obviously, Jack is saying that the death penalty, as well as the short time between arrest and the sentence being carried out, helps deter crime.
And if it doesn’t deter crime, then what is the point of it? Bloodlust?
Chris, just for clarification, the point of the death penalty has many facets and each is very important and plays a key role in justice. First, and I say that only in the order that it is written, not necessarily in order of importance, is retribution…justice for the victim’s friends and family. We do this by law so people will not be encouraged to take the law into their own hands. Next, it establishes a line (a firm rule of law) that should not be crossed. It terminates high risk to others when the death sentence abruptly ends the high cost of incarceration. And lastly it is to some degree a deterrent and this one is the most contentious. It’s hard to prove deterrence, because how do you conclusively prove that a person in a particular circumstance did not die because the offender was deterred by knowing they would face the death penalty? But, that should not stop us from making logical deductions. (in my opinion)
It’s hard to deny there are fewer murders in countries that strictly impose the death penalty by a swift apprehension to a swift execution. In large populations with few resources to preserve order and peace it’s often necessary to apply the death penalty vigorously – this is a reality we would rather not admit, but it is still a reality.
Pie: “And I should feel sorry for this murderer being alive by liberal compassion and costing taxpayers untold amounts of dollars in court?
Left-wing idiots never see the whole picture.”
This comment makes no sense on at least five different levels.
1) No one ever said you should feel sorry for Pistorius other than the voices in your head.
2) “Liberal compassion” has nothing to do with Pistorius being alive. Pistorius was not found guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter. There is no civilized country where manslaughter is a capital offense.
3) Even if he had been found guilty of murder, the death penalty was abolished in South Africa in 1995.
4) WTF do you care what taxpayers in South Africa are paying for?
5) Did you miss the part where the death penalty ends up costing taxpayers more than life in prison?
Coincidentally, and re this “frightener or frightened” question, below is a little bit posted by a “recovering conservative” on Salon today:
***
Observing the latest bout of irrational fear and stupidity over Ebola and the radical jihad group ISIS, I’m reminded of my own innate fear, an emotion that drove my politics and infected my life until I was almost middle-aged. I am ashamed to confess, but I can only control the anxiety and paranoia now because I first admit it and then seek to understand it. When I was a conservative, I fretted about people and issues from faraway places that had zero actual impact on my daily life. The terror was both illogical and very real. The feelings were so intense that they left no room for me to consider the motivations and opinions of other people, which is the defining characteristic of modern conservative politics.
The last election demonstrates the triumph of fear over reason. People were scared, disillusioned and confused, so they didn’t vote. Now that the election is over, I predict that the Ebola crisis and the ISIS will crawl back into their rightful irrelevance to American’s everyday lives. We’re already seeing the coverage peter out, now that the mission of scaring people at the polls has been accomplished.
There is one political party most dedicated to creating and exploiting irrational fear in Americans. Sure, the left does it too (and they should not), but only the conservative ideology is defined by it. They have their own marketing arms in Fox News and talk radio that dish out a daily dose of abject terror expressly to drive emotional people to vote against their own interests. The first two casualties of fear are always perspective and reason.
…
I said earlier that there are two casualties in the Fox News-based assault on reason, yet I failed to mention a third: democracy. We’ve just witnessed the result of an election fueled by negativity and disinformation, and people are afraid. They fear ISIS, Ebola and the boogeymen that inhabit the prehistoric recesses of the reptilian brain. These fears are overblown, to say the least, but we are being intentionally manipulated by conservative voices that thrive on fear to win elections or ratings. To their enduring shame, they have no concern for the damage they do to institutions and people when playing to the worst instincts of humanity.
***
And I say now and for the record, I have posted this just for the heck of … I don’t agree with it … nope, not me.
Giggle.
The only reason the death penalty in the US costs more than life in prison is because of laws passed by the left.
Jack did make a statement this statement “One of the reasons places like Dubai, UAE and similar countries have next to no crime is the short time between arrest, conviction and the sentence being carried out.”
Where in that does he mention the death penalty and any relation to crime deterrence, shit-for-brains.
His statement is about endless appeals. You made the connection to deterrence, not Jack, jackass.
By the way, I care about what happens in South Africa and elsewhere on this planet only because I have an interest in what goes on across the globe. Evidently the perpetual jerk is a also a parochial jerk.
“… retribution …. We do this by law so people will not be encouraged to take the law into their own hands.”
An eye for any eye? If the state takes the eye, is it any less barbarous? … especially if the state takes the wrong eye?
And you’ve got it all wrong anyway. Any appearance of “biblical retribution” is permitted to appear as a sop to the less evolved among us. Civil justice (laggards nothwithstanding) has evolved to the point where capital crimes are punished severely because they severely disrupt society. And if the punishment itself becomes disruptive (too damned expensive), then further adjustments will be made.
Back to your cave, boy.
Jack: “It’s hard to deny there are fewer murders in countries that strictly impose the death penalty by a swift apprehension to a swift execution.”
This is possibly true (haven’t looked up international statistics to verify), but the more relevant comparison would be between states in the U.S., not country by country. Here at home at least, states with the death penalty actually have higher murder rates than states which do not (that doesn’t prove causation, of course; states with the death penalty also tend to have higher poverty, which influences the crime rate). There isn’t much evidence that in the U.S., the death penalty works as a deterrent.
There’s also the fact that death penalty cases end up being far more costly than life in prison. I can see how speeding up the execution process could save money, but there’s a good reason this process has been made to take so long: the danger of innocent people being put to death is very real, and it’s something that does happen. The best solution is simply to eliminate the death penalty. You’re right that this doesn’t allow for retributive justice, but that’s a very low concern for me, and I think prioritizing it is unhealthy for our society.
Pie Guevara: “Jack did make a statement this statement “One of the reasons places like Dubai, UAE and similar countries have next to no crime is the short time between arrest, conviction and the sentence being carried out.”
Where in that does he mention the death penalty and any relation to crime deterrence, shit-for-brains.”
This part, right here:
“One of the reasons places like Dubai, UAE and similar countries have next to no crime”
Obviously, the only way this statement makes sense is if Jack is referring to a deterrence effect (“next to no crime”). He confirmed that himself in comment #18.
Pie, you can either be a semi-literate idiot or a pompous judgmental asshole, but you cannot be both. Please stop insulting others for your own deficiencies. It is embarrassing to watch. There was zero reason for you to respond to my initial comments with name-calling, but from now on I am going to respond in kind.
Pie: “By the way, I care about what happens in South Africa and elsewhere on this planet only because I have an interest in what goes on across the globe.”
It certainly seemed from your comment that you didn’t even realize this case took place in South Africa, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept this explanation.
That still leaves four other levels on which your comment made no sense.
Libby @17 if that Salon guy was a former conservative I’ll eat my hat. He writes exactly like a liberal.
Also: “…being able to learn from scientific and technological advances, are just the tiniest bit appalled to realize how many innocent people we’ve executed in the last 20 years.”
That same science will ensure that as time goes on people won’t be wrongly convicted. The argument cuts both ways.
I’m sorry but I find calling people barbaric because they believe we are being too soft on people convicted of horrendous murders is pretty silly. maybe Libby should take a look at the pictures associated with these murders and read the details. One of the worst I’ve heard of was the little girl who was taken from her bed in the night, subjected to sodomy, rape, and who knows what, repeatedly and then buried alive.
Maybe Libby and others like her should volunteer to pay for and guard these criminals. Apparently they find them less “barbaric” than those who believe THE LAW should be executed, no pun intended, in timely fashion. there is no explaining the minds of leftists like Libby.
Tina: “Maybe Libby and others like her should volunteer to pay for and guard these criminals.”
Pretty sure Libby is volunteering to pay for them; she’s a taxpayer, right?
Also, does it not matter to you that it has been proven that death penalty cases cost the taxpayer more than entire life sentences? The death penalty supporters here keep ignoring that point.
The rest of your comment is made up of naked emotional appeals, the types of arguments you scoff at when liberals make them.
Consistency: It’s not just something you have to worry about in the bathroom.
“Libby @17 if that Salon guy was a former conservative I’ll eat my hat.”
Tina, you are a hoot. That’s what a former conservative is … a liberal.
Re everything Chris writes here about me and others. 😀
Re Chris #23 Yes, what Jack wrote was this, “And lastly it is TO SOME DEGREE a deterrent and this one is the most contentious.” (Emphasis mine.)
Yep it certainly is in some people’s minds. For instance, I would like to (insert joke) but hey, if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. (That was a joke.) 😀
Any reasonable person can accept Jack’s statement, but of course, when it comes to you, reason can be dispensed with. Are not you always one to be first to declare that if a policy “saves one person’s life” then it is worthwhile? Funny how you so selectively apply that the “ethos”.
You are acting if Jack is making the argument that the death penalty is necessarily major deterrent. IMHO his thrust was addressing the concept that it may be the delays in justice that have a connection to crime rates. But then that is what you and the extreme left is all about, creating straw men and bashing them.
Of course, when it comes to the death penalty, delays in justice in this state are the result of the left-wing. Unable to repeal the death penalty as of late, they have been long doing an end run around it. Hence, it is very expensive to keep people on death row. Cheap to execute them, expensive to keep them, thanks to people like YOU! 😀
“Yep it certainly is in some people’s minds. For instance, I would like to blow your worthless ***hole creep brains out, but hey, if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. (That was a joke.)”
That’s not a joke. Jokes are funny.
Jack, Tina; are death threats now tolerated on Post Scripts as long as the target is a liberal?
Chris, the comment was removed. It was obviously not meant to be taken seriously. It was equally obviously it was said with rancor, as a wisecrack, to illustrate the deterrence effect. But, I agree with Tina, we can’t have that and it was removed. Our apologies for missing it.
Chris: ” does it not matter to you that it has been proven that death penalty cases cost the taxpayer more than entire life sentences?”
Hence the call for timely execution of the condemned. it only cost more because of the extreme extended delays (20 years? come on!) and court costs.
“The death penalty supporters here keep ignoring that point.”
we don’t ignore it; we see the utter irrelevance of the argument since execution, carried out in timely fashion would NOT be costly by any comparison.
“The rest of your comment is made up of naked emotional appeals, the types of arguments you scoff at when liberals make them.”
Oh bologna! The appeal was to citizens who might find themselves on a jury one day faced with actually deciding on a sentence of death. It’s easy to take that lofty philosophical position and say no to the death penalty when you don’t have to face the parents of such a child as I described, an actual case, or the SOB who would do such a thing and show zero remorse!
Conservatives never move toward liberalism or they were never conservative. The claim is a post election phony.
Chris: “Jack, Tina; are death threats now tolerated on Post Scripts as long as the target is a liberal?
No!
Neither is tattling like a small child.
Actual death threats are never tolerated on PS. Pie’s “joke” was in very bad taste and it does not make me particularly proud or happy but he clearly was not making an actual threat.
I’m sure Jack will have something to say when he catches up. I posted the comment without reading it since Pie is a regular. I can’t say what I would have done had I read it first but I have to tell you that the way you have treated Peggy, me, Jack and others on this blog at times is more despicable to me than a joke in bad taste ever would be. I don’t appreciate being targeted as racist or stupid and I don’t appreciate the condescending tone you often use. There is a good chance that a little more respect on your part would result in less animosity expressed by others…just a suggestion.
“Conservatives never move toward liberalism or they were never conservative.”
Tina, the ability to adapt to new environments, to learn, to grow, these are essential to the survival of the species.
All this “my way or the highway” you’ve been spouting lately … it’s very ISIS of you. Get a grip.
“Actual death threats are never tolerated on PS. Pie’s “joke” was in very bad taste and it does not make me particularly proud or happy but he clearly was not making an actual threat.”
And Dewey was? You really think so?
We’ve spoken to you many times about the paranoia … and will continue to do so.
Geez.
Libby, Dewey was asked not to post for other reasons, but none-the-less compelling. He received almost as many warnings as Saddam Hussein before we took him out. Case closed, we’re done discussing this.
Tina :
“Hence the call for timely execution of the condemned. it only cost more because of the extreme extended delays (20 years? come on!) and court costs.”
But the increased costs don’t just come from the long wait between sentencing and execution–they’re a result of lengthier, more pensive trials. Again, the length of those trials are necessary to ensure we don’t execute the wrong people. Eliminate the death penalty, and this risk goes away completely.
“we don’t ignore it; we see the utter irrelevance of the argument since execution, carried out in timely fashion would NOT be costly by any comparison.”
Unless the trial process were also expedited, no it wouldn’t.
“It’s easy to take that lofty philosophical position and say no to the death penalty when you don’t have to face the parents of such a child as I described, an actual case, or the SOB who would do such a thing and show zero remorse!”
I stand by my statement re: naked emotional appeals.
“Conservatives never move toward liberalism or they were never conservative.”
This is insane. Not to mention it’s hardly a compliment to your party; why would you want to perpetuate the idea that conservatives are fundamentally incapable of changing their minds? (Again I have to point out that the worst stereotypes of conservatives are not the fault of the left; you do a fine job spreading those yourself.)
Thank you for deleting Pie’s comment, though I don’t understand your statement that my comments are “more despicable” than telling someone you would like to shoot them in the head, joke or no joke.
Tina: “I don’t appreciate being targeted as racist or stupid and I don’t appreciate the condescending tone you often use.”
Well, I don’t appreciate you saying racist things like Americans were more free before integration, slave owners had more moral clarity than we do or that blacks who vote Democrat or get welfare are willing slaves who prefer a “plantation” lifestyle.
I, personally, find actual racism more offensive than accurately calling out instances of racism.
But it’s your blog.
Chris I did not say, “Americans were more free before integration, slave owners had more moral clarity than we do or blacks who vote Democrat or get welfare are willing slaves who prefer a “plantation” lifestyle.”
Your spin is BS but not surprising since you are completely incapable of thinking in terms other than race and class.
Chris: “…the length of those trials are necessary to ensure we don’t execute the wrong people.”
20 or more years…sorry. Cases are just not that complex. Lawyers grasp at straws and look for loop holes, often it’s lawyers who don’t believe in the death penalty. It isn’t about justice for that type; its about the cause.
“Eliminate the death penalty, and this risk goes away completely.”
A risk that is very small given the low numbers given the death penalty. The murders have to be pretty horrendous, and the evidence overwhelming, to receive a death sentence in the first place. A reasonable amount of time to appeal is acceptable but delay over many years is unacceptable.
“…why would you want to perpetuate the idea that conservatives are fundamentally incapable of changing their minds?”
There you go again putting words in my mouth.
Many conservatives were liberal in their youth. conservatives come to that position through a process that involves education, observation, common sense and realization. You don’t move away or revert from enlightening experiences and realizations and you don’t switch to the liberal bench over a single issue. Independent maybe but even then you will tend to vote conservative.
Also liberalism has become so radical and destructive its a joke to call it liberalism. There is little that could be considered liberal or progressive about the Marxist crap today’s “liberals” constantly pitch.
Ever heard the saying, “If you’re not liberal when you’re young you have no heart; if you’re not a conservative as you grow older you have no sense (Brains)?
It’s true…you NEVER go back to being liberal (naive). At the same time, your ability to be empathetic and compassionate matures so that more practical, sensible, and workable solutions to problems can result. Yes, I’m saying conservatives are more likely to be grown up and mature. Yes I am saying old liberals a) Never grew up or more likely, b) Are died in the wool committed communists…most of them tyrants, very bossy and arrogant.
The last six years provide a perfect picture of liberalism put boldly into practice. No responsible person would embrace the thinking or the methods used by Democrat leaders in Congress or the administration.
I expect some failures and missteps from politicians of both parties. The last six years do not represent a presidency with a few errors. They represent chaos and failure in just about every aspect and an agenda that comes before the people and the national interest.
“I don’t understand your statement”
No you don’t Chris. You don’t understand a lot of things and so far, you show little interest in actually getting what I, or others who comment here from the right, have to say.
It isn’t your opinion that grates; its your intention and your attitude I find despicable.
Re #30 Chris : LMAO! I just knew the self professed wannabe ni**er burner who would torture murder the first black POTUS (not including BJ Clinton)by burning and hanging him if he crossed his perceptions of proper policy would take my statement that way.
Not to worry ni**ger burner, you are safe, I would not ruin my life or face the death penalty because of a ridiculous ***hole jerk like you. Moreover, I believe in the implied, civil, social contract that maiming or killing people is only justified if your own life is in immediate danger. As a victim of a violent crime, I have some experience that a left wing whore like you does not. (But don’t EVER come to my home and break in, sfb.)
The joke was that even if I were to blow your stupid, jerk brains out I WOULD NEVER FACE THE DEATH PENALTY IN THIS STATE EVEN IF SENTENCED TO DEATH! I could spend my life punishing the state of California in court cost, whether sentenced to death or not.
Not to worry, ni**er burner, you’re safe from me. But someday you will **it on the wrong person if you keep up your present behavior.
Correction. I should have written: The last six years provide a perfect picture of radical liberalism put boldly into practice. No responsible person would embrace the thinking or the methods used by Democrat leaders in Congress or the administration.
Tina: “Chris I did not say, “Americans were more free before integration, slave owners had more moral clarity than we do or blacks who vote Democrat or get welfare are willing slaves who prefer a “plantation” lifestyle.””
Not only have you said each of these things multiple times over the past few weeks, you just got done defending each of them in the “Harry Reid” thread. Please do not lie.
“Your spin is BS but not surprising since you are completely incapable of thinking in terms other than race and class.”
Your problem is that you refuse to think in terms of race and class except when you can claim that rich white men are victims. Only someone blinded by privilege could think the above statements have no connection to race.
“20 or more years…sorry. Cases are just not that complex.”
But there have been cases where wrongful convictions have only been discovered after that long.
Obviously I’m not in favor of lengthy waits between sentencing and execution–that’s its own form of cruel and unusual punishment. My solution is to eliminate the death penalty entirely. The fact that it would save money is only a bonus–I think it should be eliminated because it is a terrible perversion of what real justice actually looks like.
“There you go again putting words in my mouth.”
There is a difference between putting words in someone’s mouth and explaining the logical ramifications of their arguments.
“It’s true…you NEVER go back to being liberal (naive). At the same time, your ability to be empathetic and compassionate matures so that more practical, sensible, and workable solutions to problems can result. Yes, I’m saying conservatives are more likely to be grown up and mature. Yes I am saying old liberals a) Never grew up or more likely, b) Are died in the wool committed communists…most of them tyrants, very bossy and arrogant.”
This is incredibly closed-minded. I would never make such stereotypical generalizations about conservatives.
“No you don’t Chris. You don’t understand a lot of things and so far, you show little interest in actually getting what I, or others who comment here from the right, have to say.”
So explain it to me. What have I ever said that is more despicable than this:
“I would like to blow your worthless ***hole creep brains out, but hey, if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. (That was a joke.)””
Because I can’t think of anything I’ve ever said that is this bizarre and awful, unless you think criticism of you personally is somehow automatically worse.
I highly doubt if Libby or I had made such a creepy and violent “joke” to one of your conservative commenters, we would still be welcome at Post Scripts.
So … Post Scripts … Post #42 … I’d say that calls for a banning, if anything did.
Well?
It was already censored and you know how we hate doing that. Can we move on now?
It’s useless to explain anything to you. You are not interested.
Once again your arrogance knows no bounds. You lack receiving skills, you are an output channel, incredibly full of yourself, which makes it nearly impossible to communicate with you. You have no real interest in what others think or how they have come to see things the way they do; you are too busy deciding what they think so you can respond to that. How self involved can one person be?
We have welcomed you to PS to share your opinions and point of view. You have been allowed full voice, unfiltered for several years now. We continue to post your comments even though you seem to think its your job to teach us all from what you believe is some magnificent height…my guess is you don’t even notice.is not much more than a drive buy bomb tosser, and a lot of the bombs are complete incoherent duds. Libby acts like everyone lives in her head but she too has been welcomed and given full voice for many years.
Where do you come off lecturing us as if we existed just to make you happy?
Tina: “It’s useless to explain anything to you. You are not interested.”
I am interested; that’s why I asked. What have I ever said that is worse than telling someone I would like to shoot them in the head? What have I said that is worse than routinely calling someone an “n-word burner” for no sensible reason?
The answers are “nothing” and “nothing,” obviously. You have nothing. You won’t defend your absurd moral equivalence because you can’t. You have no morals when it comes to civil discussion; all you have is tribal loyalty. Anything I say is automatically worse than anything Pie says because he is a conservative and I am a liberal.
Saying that you won’t defend your false accusations against me because I’m “not interested” is a cowardly excuse, and you know it. You won’t defend it because you know you can’t.
Reading comment #42 made me almost physically sick. The man is a violence-minded psychopath and you offer zero condemnation because you are too busy calling me “arrogant” for expecting a modicum of logic, common sense and decency. No, the fact that you bleeped out some words is not sufficient when you won’t spare a negative word in his direction. His threatening and vulgar behavior has your tacit support and approval.
Yes Jack, we’re definitely done!
“It was already censored and you know how we hate doing that. Can we move on now?”
No, we can’t. Not until you admit that 1) Pie is every bit as foul-mouthed, abusive and obnoxious (more so, in my opinion) than Dewey ever was, and 2) you won’t boot him because he’s on your side (I’d be embarrassed, if I were you).
Thanks for the support, Libby. We have not always agreed with one another and we have even taken issue with each other’s comments in the past, but that just shows that we employ fair and consistent standards. The righties here have no idea how to do that, and I really think that speaks to the disturbing level of tribal loyalty on the right. That exists in some lefty circles too–the guy Jack cited in one his latest posts does show a somewhat slavish devotion to Obama–but I think it is more pervasive on the right. It’s why there is no left-wing equivalent to Limbaugh. No one on the left would get away with saying such offensive things and enjoy such a wide progressive audience. Bill Maher tries but he is getting heat from a lot of left wing groups for some offensive statements, and there is no similar pushback to Rush on the right, because the party is overrun with people who will defend him no matter what racist, sexist and homophobic things come out of his mouth. He is given license to say and do anything as long as it’s in the service of sticking it to liberals. And now Jack and Tina are giving Pie that same license.