Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems Wordio
Log In Create Account

Disgusted With Obama Administration.

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Disgusted With Obama Administration.
ts1227's avatar

ts1227

Senior Member

12,319 posts
Nov 23, 2011 4:15 PM
You're so creative.

I have a pretty low bar set though when it comes to Dave Johnsons' sheep, though :)
Nov 23, 2011 4:15pm
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Nov 23, 2011 4:28 PM
Funny.
Nov 23, 2011 4:28pm
jhay78's avatar

jhay78

Senior Member

1,917 posts
Nov 24, 2011 12:37 PM
QuakerOats;985348 wrote:http://www.11alive.com/news/article/214228/3/Company-Policy-We-are-not-hiring-until-Obama-is-gone

Says it all.

Change we can believe in ...
Evil greedy capitalists! They should be forced to hire workers and forced to pay them well above their market value, while at the same time agreeing to pay more taxes and still produce goods and services that the public wants! :D
Nov 24, 2011 12:37pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Nov 28, 2011 11:30 AM
majorspark;977638 wrote:I get it now states want their lands to be cesspools of filth and waste. Ohio government is more than happy to risk its citzens dieing of cancer so Ohio can make a buck. If it were not for the federal government coercing Ohio with money Ohio would be a toxic waste dump. Corporate profits. Citizens be damned. Thank God for Uncle Sam. Who are you people?


Ohio cares a hell of a lot more about its environment than some federal bureaucrat born and raised in Oregon, with his his family living in Oregon, sitting behind a desk in DC haveing his balls massaged by some corporate lobbyist looking to score a buck at Ohio's expense. Not to metion his coushy federal pention to back up his decisions.
You misunderstand me sir. I just want the replacement laws to be in place before we get rid of the federal ones. If that is assured then absolutely we could switch more authority back to the states.
Nov 28, 2011 11:30am
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Nov 28, 2011 11:35 AM
Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Murder Rate in Death PenaltyStates* 9.5 9.94 9.51 9.69 9.23 8.59 7.72 7.09 6.51 5.86 5.70 5.82 5.82 5.91 5.71 5.87 5.90 5.83 5.72 5.26 5.00
Murder Rate in
Non-death
Penalty States		 9.16 9.27 8.63 8.81 7.88 6.78 5.37 5.00 4.61 4.59 4.25 4.25 4.27 4.10 4.02 4.03 4.22 4.10 4.05 3.90 4.01
Percent
Difference		 4%
 7%
 10%
 10%
 17%
 27%
 44%
 42%
 41% 28%
 35%
 37%
 36%
 44%
 42% 46% 40% 42% 41% 35% 25%



[/B]
Looks like the death penalty is really serving as a deterrance. Glad we're spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year on this, per state.

Put this here because this has sort of become a general government grievance thread.
Nov 28, 2011 11:35am
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Nov 28, 2011 9:07 PM
jhay78;985967 wrote:Evil greedy capitalists! They should be forced to hire workers and forced to pay them well above their market value, while at the same time agreeing to pay more taxes and still produce goods and services that the public wants! :D
The "save the USPS" commercials crack me up. That private competition is very successful and eating their lunch while the USPS flounders (to be VERY generous) is a lesson clearly lost on many. Pretty much everything the govt touches they suck royally at. The govt hardly ever creates value and what it is needed to do is mostly about minimizing social costs. The only transfer of wealth the govt seems to be capable of is taking from wealthy entrepreneurs to give to bureaucrats.
Nov 28, 2011 9:07pm
BGFalcons82's avatar

BGFalcons82

Senior Member

2,173 posts
Nov 28, 2011 9:42 PM
I Wear Pants;991152 wrote: Looks like the death penalty is really serving as a deterrance. Glad we're spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year on this, per state.

Put this here because this has sort of become a general government grievance thread.
I have flip flopped over the years regarding the death penalty. I believe it would be a deterrent if it were truly treated like one. How could that be done, you ask? By doing it the old fashioned way and making them public or televising them. I think if potential murderers see their ilk getting hung or strapped into ol sparky, maybe they won't be so free and easy with their life and death choices. The idea of doing it in private, with no publicity, masks why we even have the death penalty. By doing it behind closed doors, we are no better than the Chinese that secretly round-up dissidents and murder them all in the name of the state. Since no one has the stones for actually using the death penalty as a deterrent, I say we shouldn't have it.
Nov 28, 2011 9:42pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Nov 28, 2011 10:16 PM
The death penalty as a deterrent presumes murderers are rational. I'd contend cold-blooded murder isn't rational (and crimes of passion certainly aren't). It would also require the murderer to assume they'll be caught....and convicted.
Nov 28, 2011 10:16pm
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Nov 28, 2011 10:42 PM
gut;992232 wrote:The death penalty as a deterrent presumes murderers are rational.
This is why I have argued that the primary purpose of the death penalty is to meet out justice on the most henious of criminals.
Nov 28, 2011 10:42pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Nov 28, 2011 10:53 PM
majorspark;992285 wrote:This is why I have argued that the primary purpose of the death penalty is to meet out justice on the most henious of criminals.
And on the occasional innocent person. But I mean, fuck them right?

Also who gives a shit about the fiscal concerns of the policies right?

It amazes me when supposed Christians support the death penalty.
Nov 28, 2011 10:53pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Nov 28, 2011 10:55 PM
BGFalcons82;992164 wrote:I have flip flopped over the years regarding the death penalty. I believe it would be a deterrent if it were truly treated like one. How could that be done, you ask? By doing it the old fashioned way and making them public or televising them. I think if potential murderers see their ilk getting hung or strapped into ol sparky, maybe they won't be so free and easy with their life and death choices. The idea of doing it in private, with no publicity, masks why we even have the death penalty. By doing it behind closed doors, we are no better than the Chinese that secretly round-up dissidents and murder them all in the name of the state. Since no one has the stones for actually using the death penalty as a deterrent, I say we shouldn't have it.
Except that no one in the field believes it to be a deterrent. I've posted links supporting this before.

And I'd like to see murder rates when we had public executions, I'd wager they were much higher than now.

There is a preponderance of evidence that suggests that the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent, occasionally is used on innocent people, and costs far more than life imprisonment.
Nov 28, 2011 10:55pm
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Nov 28, 2011 10:57 PM
I Wear Pants;991147 wrote:You misunderstand me sir. I just want the replacement laws to be in place before we get rid of the federal ones. If that is assured then absolutely we could switch more authority back to the states.
What makes you think state environmental laws are less stringent than federal? In many states they are more restrictive. Like I said people care more about their own lands than some bureaucrat in Washington DC. Why do you think the people of Nevada are botherd by the feds wanting to store their nuclear waste in Nevada's mountains?
Nov 28, 2011 10:57pm
BGFalcons82's avatar

BGFalcons82

Senior Member

2,173 posts
Nov 28, 2011 11:18 PM
I Wear Pants;992313 wrote:Except that no one in the field believes it to be a deterrent. I've posted links supporting this before.
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.
Nov 28, 2011 11:18pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Nov 28, 2011 11:52 PM
majorspark;992317 wrote:What makes you think state environmental laws are less stringent than federal? In many states they are more restrictive. Like I said people care more about their own lands than some bureaucrat in Washington DC. Why do you think the people of Nevada are botherd by the feds wanting to store their nuclear waste in Nevada's mountains?
I don't think state environmental laws a necessarily less stringent.

I just would like someone to check before getting rid of all the federal law to make sure there aren't some ridiculous loopholes or obvious gaps in regulation because a state figured the federal EPA law already took care of it.

Barring that I have no problem with transferring much of the authority to the states.
Nov 28, 2011 11:52pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Nov 28, 2011 11:55 PM
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.
Again, you assume that murderers are rational people who would be deterred by the threat of death.

I still don't see the harm with having more life sentences without parole. (In before "blah blah blah televisions in prison blah blah blah", that's a completely unrelated argument and doesn't address the point).
Nov 28, 2011 11:55pm
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Nov 29, 2011 12:04 AM
I Wear Pants;992307 wrote:And on the occasional innocent person. But I mean, fuck them right?
I have said before some of the most henious crimes there is no doubt. I am for limiting the death penalty to those. Of course this is a state issue.
I Wear Pants;992307 wrote:Also who gives a shit about the fiscal concerns of the policies right?
A death penalty system limited to those without a doubt guilty would streamline them to the death chamber. Saving money on ridiculous appeal efforts, 20yrs of room and board. Meets my fiscal concerns.
I Wear Pants;992307 wrote:It amazes me when supposed Christians support the death penalty.
If Christians support it as it exsists I can understand. But if streamlined to meet out justice on the most henious of criminals with no doubt of their guilt, why would they have a problem?
Nov 29, 2011 12:04am
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Nov 29, 2011 12:24 AM
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.
Nov 29, 2011 12:24am
pmoney25's avatar

pmoney25

Senior Member

1,787 posts
Nov 29, 2011 9:08 AM
It is my understanding that "thou shalt not kill" is not the correct translation. Kill is actually suppose to be murder. which means noone should commit unlawful murder. I am no biblical expert but I take that as meaning there may be times when killing is justified. Self defense for example.

As for the death penalty, the system is definitely flawed but to suggest there is no way to remove doubt in a murder case is absolutely wrong.
Nov 29, 2011 9:08am
Skyhook79's avatar

Skyhook79

Senior Member

5,739 posts
Nov 29, 2011 9:50 AM
pmoney25;992439 wrote:It is my understanding that "thou shalt not kill" is not the correct translation. Kill is actually suppose to be murder. which means noone should commit unlawful murder. I am no biblical expert but I take that as meaning there may be times when killing is justified. Self defense for example.

As for the death penalty, the system is definitely flawed but to suggest there is no way to remove doubt in a murder case is absolutely wrong.
I believe your assessment is correct about "thou shalt not kill (murder)

Ecclesiastes 3 1:8:

[SUP]1[/SUP] There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens: [SUP]2[/SUP] a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
[SUP]3[/SUP] a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
[SUP]4[/SUP] a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
[SUP]5[/SUP] a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
[SUP]6[/SUP] a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
[SUP]7[/SUP] a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
[SUP]8[/SUP] a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.


imo verse 3 means, time to kill-namely, judicially, criminals; or, in wars of self-defense; not in malice as with "Thou shalt not Kill"
Nov 29, 2011 9:50am
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Nov 29, 2011 9:51 AM
pmoney25;992439 wrote:It is my understanding that "thou shalt not kill" is not the correct translation. Kill is actually suppose to be murder. which means noone should commit unlawful murder. I am no biblical expert but I take that as meaning there may be times when killing is justified. Self defense for example.

As for the death penalty, the system is definitely flawed but to suggest there is no way to remove doubt in a murder case is absolutely wrong.
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.
Nov 29, 2011 9:51am
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Nov 29, 2011 9:52 AM
I was using the term that most Christians would know.

If we're going to start looking at what the Bible actually says about justice you aren't going to like it.
Nov 29, 2011 9:52am
pmoney25's avatar

pmoney25

Senior Member

1,787 posts
Nov 29, 2011 11:43 AM
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.
Nov 29, 2011 11:43am
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Nov 29, 2011 12:19 PM
I Wear Pants;992307 wrote:And on the occasional innocent person. But I mean, fuck them right?

Also who gives a shit about the fiscal concerns of the policies right?

It amazes me when supposed Christians support the death penalty.
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.
Nov 29, 2011 12:19pm