Jump to content

hpslugga

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3456
  • Joined

Posts posted by hpslugga

  1. 9 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

    This isn’t about vengeance or bloodlust no matter how many times HP writes an emotional novel about it. 

    1). You're projecting. Everything that you have posted has been 100% rooted in emotion and emotionalism. If you took out the emotionalism of your posts, you'd wind up with a white screen.

    2). What I've said about it hasn't a drop of influence over what TwiceHorn, hobbes, or anyone else has said to you about this feeble nonsense that you've spewed onto this discussion. They knew it was verbal effluvia before I had word one to say about it.

    3). Yes, it absolutely is about bloodlust and I haven't given a single "emotional novel" on that topic. What I've given is reason and fact-based: you have not defended your claims a single iota about this not being based on a lust for blood. You have danced around this topic since you started, and all you've done in "defense" of your claim is simply to restate it without giving specifics as to how to overcome the very obvious problems of implementing such an abhorrent policy. You've literally been absolutely wrong about absolutely everything you've said regarding this topic, and my emotional temperature has had jack shit to do with it. You knew better than to puke out such garbled drivel. You aren't advancing a serious policy proposal, you aren't advocating a pathway of how to arrive at same, you aren't engaging in a serious dialogue, you are not defending what you say with research and analysis supported by peer review; you are just hooting.

    If you were as certain as you pretend to be that what you "propose" would pan out the way you say it will, and that it would serve as a societal good, you would illustrate the why's and how's, and you'd do so with evidence. You don't do any of that. And if you're going to come back at that comment with "I said it was a fantasy," then leave it there because such an admission is also a confession to its pointlessness and uselessness.

    • Like 1
  2. 3 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

    It’s not blood lust

    The fact that you repeat this lie over and over does nothing to mitigate the claim. This is a label that a DP advocate will never be able to shake: their position is entirely predicated on a  lust for blood. I've seen it done so many times by so many of them, and they have been absolutely wrong about absolutely everything they've said regarding the topic from start to finish. 

    3 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

     It would not be policy based on emotion.

    It's based entirely on emotion. Thus far, you've given no objectively verifiable criteria to serve as a guide to separate the "clear cut" cases from the not-so-obvious. All you've given are vague, empty platitudes. 

    3 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

    my plan

    What you're proposing isn't a plan; it's a wish upon a star. And that's not just rhetoric, either.

    A plan involves an actual plan. A plan includes within it a tangible, feasible, and above all, realistic road map to start where we are end where you, in this case, want to be. You have not done so. Calling what you're talking about a "plan" is as responsible as calling "let's have peace, justice, and equality" a "plan." 

     

  3. 1 hour ago, El Diablo said:

    I stand by my comment that the system such as it is puts the survivors on edge for years and years and years.

    What does that even mean?

    1 hour ago, El Diablo said:

    When we've convicted someone we need to do that with conviction.

    Again, what does this even mean? This sounds grotesquely close to the insipid "we need to tackle the drug issue head on" rhetoric I've heard from so many pro-Drug War people. 

    1 hour ago, El Diablo said:

    I'm not asking that their rights be trampled upon, I'm asking that they be respected expeditiously.

    How much faster do you seriously think the process can go? Do you have any idea what all goes into it?

  4.  

    21 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

    First, nothing I’ve said is false. It is a fantastical “what would I do if I were king?”

    If that were true, then you're admitting that it's an absolutely pointless discussion. As long as we're to entertain such inane and inarticulate hypotheticals, what's to stop a much more learned person outdoing you by going the very easy extra step of saying "if I were king, I'd direct every single scientist on Earth to come up with something with which to infuse our DNA to such an extent that committing crime in general would be both instinctively and reflectively viewed by the one contemplating such acts as repugnant, therefore there'd be no crime at all." What you're proposing is precisely as useless as that. And notice, I wouldn't oppose such a hypothetical (the DNA one, not your Game of Thrones nonsense). It's just that I'd waste not a microsecond of time contemplating it because it's so preposterous as to be comic.

    21 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

    Second, life in prison can accomplish that, but not always. Paroles, media attention, etc. 

    Parole is denied to those convicted of First Degree Murder in 20 of the 21 states with no death penalty (red Alaska is the only one that doesn't, for some reason). As to media attention, that matters not. If media attention is what drives you to support the death penalty, you're just digging around a metaphorical dumpster to support it, whether it be in a real world or a Make Believe and Pretend one. Media attention is a superficial consideration.

    21 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

    He should have been shot in the head 20 years ago, unceremoniously, with nobody watching. 

    That's just you.

  5. 6 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

    1. Clearly you’re not reading what I post.

    If anyone isn't reading what you post, it's you. You continue to insist on using arguments that not only are completely, indefensibly false, but you've been told that they're indefensibly false and you do absolutely nothing to defend yourself. You just keep repeating the same preposterous claims for which you've already been busted multiple times.

    6 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

    In all cases, convicted murders would be dead in months or a few years. In some cases they’d be dead in 45 days. Cost would plummet. 

    Yes, and I'd be fucking Kate Upton on a bed of satin sheets near a fountain being tended to by a bunch of flying angels every time one of them was executed. It's easy to argue when you assert ridiculous absurdities as fact.

    6 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

    2. Getting rid of members of society that have proven to have no use to society. That’s a great benefit. 

    Life in prison accomplishes that. Again, you won't even defend yourself on that reality. You just keep repeating these fraudulent claims.

    6 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

    3. proven to be untrue in a world where high profile murderers can live forever and sometimes be media stars like Steve Avery and   Rodney Reed. That would change and change quickly with my hypothetical. 

    Right because Steve Avery and Rodney Reed are the reasons that the system is the way that it is, and the system clearly contemplated those two during their formation. Again, you're living in a world of Make Believe and asserting it as a reality. 

  6. 2 minutes ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

    I'm not sure I would label appeals and parole as abuses of the legal system.  If we're going to take a person's liberty from them, we should want to get it right.  And life without the possibility of parole seems like a good alternative to the death penalty that will address your concern.

    That and there's still an appeals process that's inevitable when it comes to life with no parole. It's not like murder cases in any of the 21 states without death as an option are quick, easy, and terminate after the initial verdict is announced. Appeals is part of the process and that should never be used as an excuse to justify the DP.

  7. 4 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

    Closure isn't about blood retribution.

    Closure isn't. Labelling the 14 years between the initial crime to the execution as a "tormenting" for the victim's family is most certainly about blood lust. What do you think the murderer was doing all 14 of those years? Walking the streets as a free man until one day he got a call from the state that said "pardon me, good sir, but would you kindly please report to Huntsville by midnight tonight? I realize this probably didn't fit your schedule today, but we need to carry out a death sentence against you by 12:00 AM. Charge it please, and thank you very much" like Eloise?

    Quote

    Give 'em a sentence that will stick and be done with it. Death, life, whatever.

    But that's not what you said before. You said that the family was being tormented while this guy was rotting in a cell.

  8. 37 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Certainty of apprehension is a deterrent.

    And it's in this context that the DP will never be a deterrent, nor could it. Murder cases are a bitch to solve. That's not to say that it's easy to get away with murder, but it does suggest that a fair number of people can think that it is, and that's all that matters: if the perpetrator can convince himself/herself that they can get away with what they intend to do, they're going to do it. A death penalty cannot stop that.

  9. 1 minute ago, Dr. Beeper said:

    I’m not thumping my chest. I think more murder cases are NOT clear-cut than are. I’d limit what I propose to those that are clear-cut. 

    Yes, you are thumping your chest because you know full well that's not how the law works. More specifically, you know full well why that's not how the law works. This is all an exercise of Make Believe and Pretend.

  10. 8 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

    Guy kills his wife. Everyone knows he did it. Found guilty. No appeal. Yeah, what I propose is common sense. 

    You don't even know what common sense is. You're thumping your chest, not proposing common sense.

    "Everyone knows he did it"

    How? And how often do you really think murder cases are that black-and-white, open-and-shut easy?

  11. 1 hour ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

    This is wrong.  There are no benefits that the death penalty provides that go beyond what life in prison provides.  There are also extreme costs and risks.  Vengeance is the only reason to use the death penalty.  

    And I can tell from the rhetoric in your post that while you claim it's not about revenge killing, for you it's about revenge killing.  

    Oh there's no doubt. I liked the invocation of "common sense" as if common sense in any way remotely supported his position.

  12. 19 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

    From a purely practical standpoint, it's expensive as hell, it takes too long and just what does anyone get out of it that isn't satisfied by life imprisonment?

    Is it worth all that just to get some notion of vengeance?

    This is really what it comes down to in the end.

    It's been offered by DP proponents that the DP acts as a deterrent to murder. It doesn't, and there's precisely zero evidence to corroborate the claim. I do remember a certain poster in the HF/SB days offering "studies" that "proved" the deterrent effect, but it turned out that the "studies" were done by a handful of business professors (all of whom knew each other) and proposed preposterous math equations, which themselves were debunked by a barrage of people who knew what they were talking about. There's no deterrent effect except inside of the minds of those desperately wanting to validate it.

    It's been offered by DP proponents that it's less costly than life in prison. It isn't.

    It's been offered by DP proponents that it gives the families of the victims a sense of closure and satisfaction. I'd refer such people to the very simple comment that I just quoted. As @TwiceHornmentioned, it really does come down to a very primitive impulse of bloodlust. It's the only argument that comes down a purely subjective set of criteria, thus impossible to factually refute. Of course the problem is that DP proponents, by and large, will never admit to possessing a bloodlust, hence they make up stories about "deterrence effect" and "cost benefit analysis" that plainly do not support them upon critical examination.

    Bottom line, if bloodlust is all one has, one hasn't enough.

    • Like 2
  13. 35 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

    The conservative idea that everyone who is currently uninsured is going to turn into a super-hypochondriac is laughable.

    It’s an idea born from the same two inbred parents that spawned the idiot, “if you legalize drugs, everyone will become a junky,” bastard. As to this idea that they somehow are the ones that know the numbers, that’s just another fantasy that they rubbed out alongside Trickle Down Economics and Peace Through Strength.

    35 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

    And conservatives are going to have to live with the idea that poor people deserve cancer treatment too. 

    That they will not do and you’d be wasting your time suggesting it to these undereducated narcissists.

    35 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

    However, even that isn't going to drastically affect the wait time at the oncologist.  The primary issue the uninsured and impoverished have had when it comes to cancer is a lack of early detection.  By the time they hit the ER, its too late to do anything about it.  And they still often get the current too-late super expensive end stage surgeries.  What they don't get is the early and cheaper treatments.

    Also, the hysterics over the price tag is funny.  We spend far more than that on healthcare every year.  The current massive premiums we pay will be shifted to M4A.  If supplemental is permitted, the premiums will be far cheaper than current rates since it will be gap coverage.  At some point, we could also stop allowing pharma to gouge us too.

    BUT TAXES!!!

    • Like 1
  14. 9 hours ago, Captain Ron said:


    I agree they were all deserving contestants, but I had Brad and Ken ahead for who I wanted to see win. Both players have lived Jeopardy! so long. James does too, but he’s new on the block.

    I think Brad underestimates what a small slowdown on the button will do. James changes the game in that alone (his wagering takes it to that next level).

    And it’s in this context that I think Ken’s win is so impressive. He’s a great competitor but I don’t recall him as much of a risk taker as he had to be in this one...and he fucking delivered.

    Really would have liked to see James connect on that FJ just to force a for-the-marbles game 5. Brad was really just...there

  15. 16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    The theory is less emphasis on reelection if term is limited.  Thus, less emphasis on fundraising and less vulnerability to quid pro quo campaign contributions from industry/industry groups and less incentive to listen to lobbyists.

    Of course, that ignores the other forms of graft that lobbyists offer.

    All term limits will accomplish is changing the names of the people who allow for shit like this to happen. It's not like the federal government has some invisible barrier through which people pass once they take the oath of office and that pass through said barrier makes them evil or stupid. These people are bought and paid for by a handful of billionaires and multi-millionaires and they're put in office with the understanding that their policy decisions need to benefit them primarily. If you enact term limits, all you're really doing is slightly inconveniencing the aforementioned super wealthy by making them continue to research/vet candidates every few years instead of being able to say "you know, that Lindsey Graham has been our whore for almost twenty years, so let's pump some more money into his re-elect bid and he can be our whore for 6 more years."

    If anything, what they'll do is promote leadership position concepts in all their little Super PAC's and the ones who've never held elected positions will get them the next go around. So you've got a guy that's been promoted the head of the I'm Rich, Bitch PAC, he serves a term of two years, then they properly fund and campaign for him the next time a Senate seat in Texas or Wyoming or whatever comes up. And when he serves? It'll look no different than it already does now.

    If you want to mitigate the power of, as you say, "fundraising, quid pro quo campaign contributions, and incentive to listen to lobbyists," you might want to start (certainly not end) with the overturn of Citizens United.

    • Like 4
  16. 1 hour ago, gsoda3 said:

    ok the error in your thinking is that things were just dandy until and because he reneged on the deal.   that's what i take by you meaning trump "started" this. 

     

    iran's been long fighting the US by proxy in iraq.  after ISIS was defeated in syria those attacks in iraq from militias backed by iran have increased.  tensions between the US and iran were already high because of this.  trump reneging on the deal increased the tension, but it was already there.   

     

     

    The roots of the conflict go back to 1953, 50 years prior to the US invading Iraq, and everything that's happened since. This did not start with Obama or Trump. They're merely the latest two actors to come into the 9th and 10th acts of this utterly wretched tragedy of political theatre.

    • Like 2
  17. Just now, Lobo said:

    I don't despise Jared as much as most of you in the CR.  However, I'd like to see Iran take him out because I want to see Donald console Ivanka at the state funeral.  I would imagine it would be exactly like Will Ferrell with the grieving woman in "Wedding Crashers."  

     

    Actually it'd probably be like his actual reaction to 9/11: "Now my dick is the biggest Ivanka ever had."

  18. 15 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

    So murder means disband and rape means no penalty.

    Rape meant no penalty from the NCAA. It's as if you only read like 3-4 sentences and only interpreted from it what you wanted it to say.

    Quote

    You're being a buffoon about this. 

    And your reading comprehension is utter shit today. And I say "today" out of respect because you're usually a lot better than this.

    Quote

    Why would the university be shut down by murder and not what was essentially a rape syndicate?  

    Who all was involved in the rape syndicate? With the insane murderer scenario, you were attributing guilt to all players, all coaches. You're talking about well over 100 people committing the murders alone, and for an entire year, you said. But the participation in such a hypothetical wouldn't be restricted to that, and you know that. You know full well that it would come with it firsthand knowledge by the athletic director, and very likely higher administrative sorts, and a whole host of others (even a mound of students, actually). And if it really was that pervasive, that wouldn't be just turning a blind eye. That would be fucking endorsement. Baylor's alleged to have 52 rapes by 31 players. I already told you what I thought of it, but I'll say it again: that is disgusting, and something should be done about it, but this isn't a matter of just doing shit that makes you feel good and/or throwing shit at the wall.

    Regardless, the arguments that you've put forth up until this point are just absolutely awful and you really should re-think them. You couldn't even be bothered to answer the most relevant questions I posed to you, which tells me you have something to hide and/or you're aware you're being disingenuous. I'll re-state:

    1. Because the NCAA did not act with the DP on Baylor, do you fear that massive amounts of rapes will continue/resume at Waco?
    2. Because the NCAA did not act with the DP on Penn State, do you fear they will knowingly employ a pedophile on its coaching staff?

    If you aren't, then what the fuck are you even doing here?

    You seem to be suffering under the delusion that universities are monolithic entities that act. They're not. They consist of individuals, and in each scandal, you have to decide what to do to administer actual justice on a case-by-case basis and not just taking brainless, lazy actions that are meant entirely to satisfy your own selfish blood lust and essentially nothing else.

    Seriously, who among the bad actors at SMU were punished? I really would like to know the answer to that question. Sherwood Blount? Doing just fine. Ron Meyer? I'm pretty sure that he had some regrets, but paying 18 year olds to play football for him wouldn't be anywhere near the top, if it even registers at all. Eric Dickerson? No. That motherfucker was paid over a million dollars per year at SMU, had an exceptional career in the NFL and is doing just fine now. Ask if he would reconsider taking payments from SMU if he knew the NCAA would banish them from competition a few years after he got drafted and tell me you're surprised that he laughed at you. Craig James? Again, the same thing. Even the guys like Stopperich and Stanley, who cooperated with the NCAA, would very likely have told you they would still have taken the money even if they knew they'd snitch years later. But they weren't punished, either. Nobody who was guilty in that sad tale suffered any sort of consequence short term or long, at least not due to the Death Penalty from the NCAA. Hell, the Indianapolis Colts employed Ron Meyer for 5 seasons even AFTER they learned all the lurid details of the death penalty, and they hired him well after knowing that he had committed multiple infractions while he was there.

    The whole point of the SMU example above is to say that there are feel-good actions and do-good actions. Do-good actions are those that both help the victims and punish the culprits. An NCAA-imposed death penalty against Penn State, Baylor, SMU, et al accomplishes neither. It just makes you feel good, and apparently that's all you think matters. If the answer to my previous two questions re: Penn State and Baylor are both "no," then by definition, you are satisfied with the actions that the universities and district attorneys offices took to alleviate those atrocities. Again, if you're turning to the NCAA to curb rape, you're turning to the wrong sources. You know better than that. And you don't need to take it from me; just ask the victims. If you asked any of those girls at Baylor or the then-young boys in Happy Valley if the NCAA terminating the football programs would suffice as justice to them, do you really think any of them would say "yes, that would satisfy me?"

    • Like 2
  19. 19 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

    That's my bigger question.

    If it was, you'd have asked it instead of attributing things to me that I never said nor believed.

    19 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

    There is no NCAA rule that says if a football program is found to have been a serial killer ring where the full coaching staff and all players habitually kidnapped and murdered young children over the course of a year

    If this insane scenario took place, the NCAA would be the least of such an institution’s concerns, and you know that. If that happened, the state government would swoop in, there’d be massive prosecutions and convictions and the university itself would very likely be forcibly shut down. Their football program would definitely shut down, and the NCAA wouldn't have needed to lift a finger to do so as it'd basically be a self-imposed one. 

    But we're talking about the NCAA, and you’re talking about serial killers? The NCAA had two test cases to look at for Baylor and they were led to what they did about it based on those two: Penn State and SMU. At Penn State, it was literally a handful of bad actors. Aside from not being within the 5-year window, all of the bad actors were removed from their positions, and many of them faced prosecution. Tell me with a straight face now that you fear, because the NCAA didn’t impose the death penalty on them, Penn State is at risk of suffering another saga of a Sandusky-type and a cover up of same. If you don’t, why would you support a death penalty? Same with Baylor. They’ve rid themselves of the bad actors. Do you fear that because the NCAA didn't terminate their program that there's going to be another Waco rape-fest?

    At SMU, the issue was not only repetitive, it was literally institutional. Even if by some miracle that all of the bad actors in that scenario were removed, SMU football couldn't exist anyways. Seriously, that whole episode involved pretty much all of the major boosters, the board of regents, the athletic director, the president, and even a former fucking governor of the State of Texas. SMU's athletic department wouldn't have been able to function if all of those guys were removed en masse. I doubt the NCAA even pondered that, but the fact was that the very people guilty of the worst violations were also the people who kept that department afloat. If they did ponder it, their decisions was basically "these fucking assholes aren't cooperating at all, the university isn't going to do a fucking thing about this shit, so we're going to do it for them."

    Was such action needed at Baylor? Penn State? No. None of you seriously fear that mass rapes will revisit Waco, and none of you seriously fear that a pedophile will be employed by Penn State's athletic department while they know he is a pedophile. Had the NCAA not acted, you would definitely fear that SMU would have continue to operate its football program with a fucking payroll for its recruits, including paying certain players up to 6-7 figure annual salaries, and you've have been right to fear that.

    And I say that as someone who opposes the death penalty in principle because I believe (based on precedent) that it punishes the innocent far more than the guilty. Seriously, the players who were paid at SMU went on to have normal lives completely unabated by the DP, as were the rich boosters who started all of it. Who suffered at SMU? Players who didn't take payments, the alumni who had nothing to do with it, and even players who weren't even fucking born yet and that was entirely predictable. I can't tell you how many coaches correctly predicted that SMU would be a "doormat for decades," as one of them put it, but it wasn't a brilliant prediction. It was obvious that it was going to take as long as it's taken for them to build themselves up to a position of respectability. Forrest Gregg's players never took money from Sherwood Blount, neither did any of Tom Rossley's, neither did Matt Cavan's, Phil Bennett's, June Jones', Chad Morris' or Sonny Dykes'. Those guys and their players were absolutely innocent of the type of wrongdoing that Ron Meyer and Sherwood Blount were known to commit with impunity, yet the former had to suffer for it instead of the latter.

    All that being said, if you had told me in some abstract seminar "well if the NCAA could only use the death penalty on one football program...," I'd definitely agree that it should have been SMU without question. That's the central question the NCAA ponders when they discuss the DP: if we do not act, do we fear that this will continue. At Baylor and PSU, the answer to that question was no, and that's why they didn't go that far.

    19 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

    They should still have their program disbanded.

    And not by the NCAA. That's my point. If you're asking yourself "what would the NCAA do" if that insane serial killer scenario panned out, you're thinking about the wrong shit.

    • Like 4
×
×
  • Create New...