Disgusted With Obama Administration.

• jhay78

  

  I Wear Pants;992307 wrote:And on the occasional innocent person. But I mean, **** them right?
  
  Also who gives a **** about the fiscal concerns of the policies right?
  
  It amazes me when supposed Christians support the death penalty.

  You're assuming Christians get giggly and high-five each other when the death penalty is meted out. The death penalty is not meant to be a deterrant, it is meant to administer justice in the case of someone who coldly takes the life of another human being. It does not celebrate death- it is the most just form of affirming the value of the innocent life that was taken in the first place.
  

  I Wear Pants;992394 wrote:There is no way to remove a doubt of guilt.
  
  And they'd have a problem because of the whole "thou shall not kill" thing. I didn't see a footnote *except when that person is a government agent and the people think they have insurmountable proof of the guilt of a heinous crime.

  The same guy (Moses) who wrote down the Ten Commandments, including "thou shalt not kill", also wrote down several examples of crimes where the punishment of such called for the death penalty (many of which we could argue about for a few pages, but that's not the point).
  

  queencitybuckeye;992750 wrote:An understanding of the Bible deeper than quoting "Thou shall not kill" will lead one to understand that there is support for the death penalty, and other justified taking of lives.

  +1. Romans 13:4- "it (the governing authorities) does not bear the sword for nothing . . . it is an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil." All that in the context of urging Christians not to be known as lawbreakers.
• I Wear Pants

  pmoney25;992680 wrote:

  I Wear Pants;992476 wrote:And how so? What system have you designed for identifying criminals that is absolutely perfect and will never ever have a problem? I'd love to hear it.[/QUOTE
  
  So lets say you walk into a 711, rob the place and blow the clerks head off. All on tape. Your face is easily seen. How is there a reasonable doubt it was you? There are crimes where 100% guilt is evident.
  
  Im not even saying I agree with the death penalty, just your statement that there is always a doubt, when thats not true. My apologies if I misunderstood your comment.

  Have you ever seen a lookalike before? Or the quality of most security cameras?
  
  I'm not saying that I doubt the guilt of every person but that I doubt it enough in the vast majority of cases that I don't believe the death penalty is a prudent measure. That's without considering the economic impacts of it as well.
  
  Again I ask, what is the harm in having someone rot in jail?

• I Wear Pants

  http://www.theatlanticcities.com/technology/2011/11/why-your-water-bill-must-go-up/578/
  
  Couldn't we have spent some of the stimulus money on our water systems? Or the electric grid? Or our telecommunications infrastructure? Etc.
• jmog

  I Wear Pants;992307 wrote: It amazes me when supposed Christians support the death penalty.

  Care to enlighten me as to why Christians should be forced by their beliefs to be against the death penalty?
  
  I'd love to hear this verse please.
• jmog

  I Wear Pants;992394 wrote:There is no way to remove a doubt of guilt.
  
  And they'd have a problem because of the whole "thou shall not kill" thing. I didn't see a footnote *except when that person is a government agent and the people think they have insurmountable proof of the guilt of a heinous crime.

  Actually the Hebrew (original version) correct translation is "thou shall not murder" which is how it is translated in more recent tranlations.
  
  No where in the Bible does it forbid judgemental killing of someone who was involved in heinous crimes. In fact most of the old testament is laced with cases of criminals getting the death penalty.
• Footwedge

  BGFalcons82;992336 wrote:OK. My point is still valid as the issuers of capital punishment don't use it as a deterrent. They are using it as punishment, the ultimate form of punishment.
  
  As far as the murder rates when we had public executions, we'll never know as they've not been public for many many decades. IF it is used as a deterrent, then the most beneficial way to deter future murders is to physically demonstrate the consequences of their actions. That's my point. Since it isn't used as such, I agree with you in that it isn't a deterrent and should therefore not be used. Except for the Penn State child molesting coach...I think he should be left alone with his victims and their families in a room all by themselves. Justice would be served. Same thing for the Ft. Hood murdering scumbag "soldier". They shoulda shot that bastard when he was in the crosshairs. Or...to put it in terms for the Obama-supporters....put him in an open field with drone planes buzzing about.

  A couple of things. IwP's chart clearly does show that the death penalty is in fact a deterrent. I was very surprised that the rates were that much different. I learned something there. Secondly, the law should be changed regarding Capital Punishment from "beyond reasonable doubt" to "no dout at all". Perhaps 2 eye wiitnesses to a capital crime and the clear evidence from DNA...which is more than 99.9% accuarate today.
  
  With science the way it is....there should never be an instance whereby an innocent man is put to death. But I dop agree that televising the event....or perhaps youtubing the event would further reduce the murder rate. And although I am a staunch supporter of the Constitutionality of human civil rights, the appeals process needs to be hastened for those on death row. Again, there must be a proponderence of evidence proving one's guilt...which bydefault, would remove a very large portion of those presently sentenced to death.
• QuakerOats

  http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-admin-seals-records-murdered-border-patrol-agent-implicated-fast-and-furious_610783.html
  
  
  Stunning.
  
  Change we can believe in ....
• I Wear Pants

  Footwedge;994835 wrote:A couple of things. IwP's chart clearly does show that the death penalty is in fact a deterrent. I was very surprised that the rates were that much different. I learned something there. Secondly, the law should be changed regarding Capital Punishment from "beyond reasonable doubt" to "no dout at all". Perhaps 2 eye wiitnesses to a capital crime and the clear evidence from DNA...which is more than 99.9% accuarate today.
  
  With science the way it is....there should never be an instance whereby an innocent man is put to death. But I dop agree that televising the event....or perhaps youtubing the event would further reduce the murder rate. And although I am a staunch supporter of the Constitutionality of human civil rights, the appeals process needs to be hastened for those on death row. Again, there must be a proponderence of evidence proving one's guilt...which bydefault, would remove a very large portion of those presently sentenced to death.

  How does the chart show that? The chart doesn't suggest at all that the death penalty is a deterrant. I'd like to see your logic in saying that it is.
  
  States with the death penalty have higher murder rates.
• QuakerOats

  Most could care less if the death penalty is a deterrent; that is not the point. The point is, is the death penalty a due punishment for the most heinous crimes --- most say yes. It is whether the penalty is due and just, not whether it is a deterrent. However, to make it more of a deterrent, there must be a timeline for death row -- say 1 year from conviction - period. Do that, and televise the 'end', and yes it will become more of a deterrent as well.
• I Wear Pants

  QuakerOats;995064 wrote:Most could care less if the death penalty is a deterrent; that is not the point. The point is, is the death penalty a due punishment for the most heinous crimes --- most say yes. It is whether the penalty is due and just, not whether it is a deterrent. However, to make it more of a deterrent, there must be a timeline for death row -- say 1 year from conviction - period. Do that, and televise the 'end', and yes it will become more of a deterrent as well.

  Interesting how you have no facts to support your position.
  
  I've posted tons of them that show that the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent, is not infallible, and costs hundreds of millions of dollars in excess to the taxpayer per year. Then add in that it's not like there is a massive majority of people that are staunch supporters of the death penalty. Support has been going down and in recent polls when only given two options for a punishment for murder it was essentially split between Life without parole and the death penalty. I imagine support will continue to trend downward as younger people support the death penalty less than old people.
  
  
  
  There is no societal benefit to using the death penalty and no societal penalty when instead murderers are placed in prison (assuming of course that crimes that would currently carry the death penalty have no possibility of parole). How is our country better off with John Q. Stabbedhiswife dead vs locked in prison forever given that the latter option is less expensive and infallible in the sense that mistakes are correctable?
• QuakerOats

  No one should be on death row for more than a year after conviction --- changing that alone would save hundreds of millions of dollars. People are entitled to a speedy trial; they are also entitled to die for committing certain heinous crimes if convicted, and in that regard they should be put to death quickly. Punishment would be served justly, the taxpayers would not be wrung dry, and society would be better off. And again, whether it is a deterrent or not is NOT the point - I don't care if it is or isn't.
• I Wear Pants

  QuakerOats;995188 wrote:No one should be on death row for more than a year after conviction --- changing that alone would save hundreds of millions of dollars. People are entitled to a speedy trial; they are also entitled to die for committing certain heinous crimes if convicted, and in that regard they should be put to death quickly. Punishment would be served justly, the taxpayers would not be wrung dry, and society would be better off. And again, whether it is a deterrent or not is NOT the point - I don't care if it is or isn't.

  You also don't care for those people who have been found to be on death row wrongfully many years after their conviction.
  
  And where is the part about people dying in the constitution?
• I Wear Pants

  [video=youtube;y5UT04p5f7U][/video]Can we at least all agree on this?
• Cleveland Buck

  

  I Wear Pants;995284 wrote:[video=youtube;y5UT04p5f7U][/video]Can we at least all agree on this?

  Pennies are the second most valuable pieces of money in circulation behind nickels. People will be better off holding pennies than $100 bills in the not too distant future.
• I Wear Pants

  Which is why we should stop making them. It does not benefit the economy.
• IggyPride00

  

  Cleveland Buck;995287 wrote:Pennies are the second most valuable pieces of money in circulation behind nickels. People will be better off holding pennies than $100 bills in the not too distant future.

  Maybe, maybe not. At the rate Helicopter Ben is cutting down trees to feed his printing presses we may have the government gestapo raiding our homes soon to seize our furniture and as wood could become a thing of the past. At the rate the Fed is going we may run out of paper before copper in this country.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  I Wear Pants;995293 wrote:Which is why we should stop making them. It does not benefit the economy.

  LOL. Yeah, it's the penny's fault it is more valuable than the paper bills. That's like kicking the smart kids out of school so the dumb kids don't know they are dumb.
• I Wear Pants

  Cleveland Buck;995301 wrote:LOL. Yeah, it's the penny's fault it is more valuable than the paper bills. That's like kicking the smart kids out of school so the dumb kids don't know they are dumb.

  What?
  
  The purpose of money is for it to facilitate exchange of goods. Pennies no longer serve that purpose.
  
  How do we benefit by retaining the penny? They don't get spent.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  I Wear Pants;995304 wrote:What?
  
  The purpose of money is for it to facilitate exchange of goods. Pennies no longer serve that purpose.
  
  How do we benefit by retaining the penny? They don't get spent.

  They will eventually. The government has a lot more to worry about than trying to seize the little remaining money out there has some value, no matter how little. The little bit of copper in a penny is worth more than a piece of paper.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  IggyPride00;995295 wrote:Maybe, maybe not. At the rate Helicopter Ben is cutting down trees to feed his printing presses we may have the government gestapo raiding our homes soon to seize our furniture and as wood could become a thing of the past. At the rate the Fed is going we may run out of paper before copper in this country.

  I'll rep this to encourage you to post more over here. Common sense is sorely lacking in the Politics forum.
• I Wear Pants

  Cleveland Buck;995310 wrote:They will eventually. The government has a lot more to worry about than trying to seize the little remaining money out there has some value, no matter how little. The little bit of copper in a penny is worth more than a piece of paper.

  Who the hell was talking about seizing money? I just meant don't make anymore.
• sleeper

  

  IggyPride00;995295 wrote:Maybe, maybe not. At the rate Helicopter Ben is cutting down trees to feed his printing presses we may have the government gestapo raiding our homes soon to seize our furniture and as wood could become a thing of the past. At the rate the Fed is going we may run out of paper before copper in this country.

  i lol'd
• believer

  

  jmog;994505 wrote:Care to enlighten me as to why Christians should be forced by their beliefs to be against the death penalty?
  
  I'd love to hear this verse please.

  As jhay78 points out above, we can cite a verse in the New Testament that defends it:
  
  "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience." - Romans 13:1-5 NIV
• I Wear Pants

  In hindsight I shouldn't have brought that up. But you guys really don't want to get into the punishment that the bible allows. Not applicable to civilized culture.
• jmog

  I Wear Pants;996033 wrote:In hindsight I shouldn't have brought that up. But you guys really don't want to get into the punishment that the bible allows. Not applicable to civilized culture.

  Feel free to get into it, you won't be the first on here to do so, and probably not the last.
  
  Trust me, I understand a LOT of the stuff in the OT, you have to remember however, that just because the OT describes the Jewish laws, doesn't mean the Bible/God endorsed them.
  
  Historical records are also a part of the Bible as well.